————————-

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

―

George Carlin

——-

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

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

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

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

There’s nothing inherently wrong with bombastic patriotism.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with bombastically celebrating independence.

Why?

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

Ideals are ideas.

Ideals are hope.

Ideals are a vision.

Ideals are, well, frustrating on occasion.

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

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

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

The bar is high.  But Americans aim high.

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

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

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

———

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

Henry James

———–

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

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

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

That said.

We bombastically celebrate the ideal.

And you know what? That is a big deal.

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

Yes.

We have parades to celebrate America and being American.

Yes.

We have spectacular firework extravaganzas that everyone goes to.

Yes.

We have massive parties that entire towns attend.

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

4th of July is fun.

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

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

——-

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

Kurt Vonnegut

——–

What I love about America is the searching.

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

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

Well.

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

Happy 4^th of July.

Well. There is a lot of talk in the business world about how creativity has been squashed by data, numbers and an unhealthy pursuit of efficiency. All is true. However, to rediscover creativity I believe its helpful to think about how fearless you have to be to actually BE creative. Creativity is a tricky thing. Originality is an objective but less important than not copying. Inherent in almost every creative idea are elements of something that already exists or has been done.

I say all that because, having been involved in the creativity business in some form for over 20 years, I recognize that the best of the creative best are part insecure and part fearless. And it’s the fearless part that I am going to write about because I saw this quote somewhere.

—————

“I seek fearless work that challenges me”

Martha Graham

——————–

This is good stuff.

This is the kind of stuff not for the faint of heart.

And, frankly, this is the kind of stuff for few people, but, I can pretty much guarantee its at the essence of every great creative mind. Why? Because this quote is indicative of someone whose heart lies in doing fearless work.

Oh.

Fearless work means being fearless of failure.

Fearless work does NOT mean doing something wacky just for wacky sake.

Oh. But that is the first thing people who condone fearless work bring up.

You hear words like “stupid” or “what were they thinking” or “I could have told them it wouldn’t work <or be popular or be liked>.” In my mind those are words of people who fear work that looks fearless. This fear can be disguised as a variety of things … discomfort in something new … misunderstanding … lack of ability to recognize something.

Whatever.

This is about people who actually DO the fearless work. Because people who seek to do fearless work recognize several things:

–          how difficult it is (even though it may seem simple to the creators)

–          how unpopular it may be

–          when to stop being unpopular (the guard rails in fearless creativity)

In fact. I am going to use someone else who pursued fearless work to make the point. Kristen Hersh (one of the founding members of The Throwing Muses). As a teen (just to make another point that teens can often be wiser beyond their years) she said this about the difficulty of pursuing fearless work:

——————-

“Do you know how hard it is to not know how to sound like other bands? There aren’t any lessons to teach you how to do this and no one can help us figure out what <to play>. It’s hard to learn something that no one can teach you.”

Kristen Hersh

———————–

Actually. I wish I could share this with anyone who is critical of any original idea so they could think about the fact someone is doing something that was self taught because there is realistically no one to teach someone what has not been done before. Sometimes fearless work is difficult, and defined, by the fact you are forging your own path.  There are certainly some principles you can stand upon and some rigor of thought you can apply, but, there are no lessons,  there are no rules &  there are no real guardrails. In fact. The real difficulty is knowing when to put up your own guard rails.  Knowing when to stop innovating and just be creative with fearless work.

Kristen, as a 19 year old teen, pursued fearless work and did some amazing stuff (along with her fellow teen and musical genius in her own right – Tonya Donnelly).

Anyway.  I think the fearless ones tend to hear and see things the rest of us don’t. In simplistic terms it is only popular in their own heads. And unfortunately for the fearless there is only a minority who truly understands what they are doing:

(Kristen Hersh) … “but we play unpopular music.”

(producer) …

“that’s exactly what you play because you’re inventing something. You’re gonna be hugely influential.”

I do believe the best of the fearless best recognize that what they do may be initially unpopular to the majority. It is an uncomfortable position to be in because ideas are fragile and affirmation often makes it less fragile (people too).

The fearless just forge ahead. They may not like it. They may not embrace it.  But they understand it. And fight their way through it.

Because it is a fact. All the truly influential fearless creators didn’t have it easy early on.  They were creating something – inventing something. In their fearless work they were paving the way for people to think differently, see differently and just experience something different.  Yeah, I know, that is what being influential is all about.  But that doesn’t make it any easier. Now. While fearless work is often unpopular initially there is a difference between bad unpopular and influential unpopular. Good fearless is about understanding how to put up the right guardrails. Oh. Yeah. Those guard rails.

So how do the fearless know when to stop innovating?

———————

“when you start to suck, stop”

Kristen Hersh

———————-

Sounds simple, but it is not. I believe the best of the fearless best have an internal quality control.  Conversely, in the mind’s of the ‘less mature’ innovative thinking maybe the guard rails are less defined. But. In the best of the fearless best they have that inner barometer to recognize what sucks and what doesn’t suck.

Oh. And before we start putting too much weight on ‘less mature’ and associating it with age I would like to remind you that Kristen said this last quote when she was 19 (oh, these smart teens as I like to remind those wise stodgy adults).

Like I just said.

The best of the fearless best have an inner barometer.  They are born with it. They are born with the guardrails.

But this doesn’t mean there isn’t fear.

Even the fearless creative people have fear.

Everyone has fear (lest we forget).

————————–

“We fear the idea of something more than the thing itself.”

Steve Chandler

——————

Fearless work means loving the idea of something more than fearing the thing itself. I imagine that thought encapsulates most good things in life. But in this case those who pursue fearless work have overcome their fear in pursuit of what is good fearless work.

Anyway.

Today’s business world needs more people to pursue fearless work. To fearlessly create beautiful ideas that may make some people feel uncomfortable. We need these fearless people because they have a ripple effect beyond their own work. They influence how the rest of us look at ALL things. I do worry a little bit because I know these people exist but I am not sure a business world exists for them to exist in. We say we want more creativity, more risk, more fearlessness and, yet, the business word does not reward creativity, risk or fearlessness. I do worry a little bit because those who DO create fearless work live in an insecure world and if the business world does nothing to offer a security safety net being fearless can become an almost insurmountable daunting challenge.

My personal thought?

If you are fearless, all you can do is …

Act.

Do.

Create.

Discover your fear, face it and seek your own version of fearless work. In the end maybe we are lucky enough to positively influence people. And, at its best, maybe we actually be influential. And, of course, maybe something fearless we do will create the change necessary for the next fearless work to be done.

===========

“Courage and grace is a formidable mixture. The only place to see it is the bullring.”

—-

Marlene Dietrich

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

Lots of discussion about Purpose in business and having a meaningful job which reminded me of a great little article, Cape Crusader, in an old New Yorker about Justo Algaba (great website) who is “one of the world’s most respected matador tailors.” This article made me think of a couple of things.

First is “that perfect job for you.” Perfection is a myth but, on occasion, someone actually does find their dream job. Algaba? This hombre loves his job and ultimately calls it “his destiny” (oh. Don’t we all wish we could say that). Being able to do your passion for work, well, I am not sure there is anything better <careerwise>.

Second. The article reminded me of the time my parents took me to a bullfight in Spain years ago.

But, first, the perfect job.

Justo Algaba’s Madrid business just produces matador outfits (called trajes de luces (“suits of light”), because of their shimmery, multicolored adornments). That’s it. He makes more than a hundred and fifty matador suits each year for matadors around the world.

——

“Every suit I make is like having a child.”

Justo Algaba

———–

Just so you know, a good matador will order between six and ten suits a year. Anyway. As a youngster he had a different dream – to be a pilot. But when Algaba was 18 he saw a help wanted ad for a tailor’s shop, wandered in and met the famous bullfighter El Cordobés being fitted for a suit. While I would have been speechless meeting El Cordobes, Algaba remembered four years earlier he’d made a promise to himself that he’d either be a bullfighter or make clothes for them. Thus began the life of a Matador tailor – one of five matador tailors IN THE WORLD (all the tailors know each other and they all live in Madrid).

Interestingly, matador suit appear to be a personal thing & customized based on a combination of style, superstition and showmanship. I was surprised to find out many bullfighters let Algaba take creative license. For instance, for Paco Ojeda, a Mexican bullfighter whom Algaba considered a star he created a suit with stars and poinsettia flowers. Other matadors are picky & superstitious – especially about color.

Algaba:

“There was one bullfighter” (Jesulín de Ubrique, of Spain) “who was very lucky with the ladies. And there was another bullfighter” (Manolo Mejia, of Mexico) “who’d seen that de Ubrique had so much luck he was wondering if wearing the same kind of yellow suit would work for him as well.” So the Mexican tried a yellow suit—“and it worked.”

Okay. So the suit is sometimes less about in the bullring and more about outside the ring. But hey. I don’t begrudge these guys some fun outside the ring before taking on some half ton pissed off snorting hunk of beef with really big horns.

So this is a great story about a guy who found his dream job in a pretty cool ‘industry.’ But, I imagine, the real thought here is that he found ‘the coolness’ <or passion> in an unexpected place in an unexpected way. It is kind of a behind the scenes glamor job. It is not glamorous, in fact, I imagine it is quite tedious day to day . Yet this person has found a happy place in which to find satisfaction in his work.

The lesson? Great jobs exist outside the spotlight. In fact, many of the greatest jobs ENABLE the spotlight.

Secondly. The bullfight.

My memory of my bullfight day is fuzzy but distinct in some ways. If you want me to recall the particulars I cannot (beyond the fact I know I was mortified that my mother cheered for the bulls). Anyway. Think of a bullfight like a boxing match – a number of undercard matches and then the main match. I do remember distinct bits & pieces. The bullfight is a spectacle. At its worst it was a bloody mess. At its best it was stunningly scary and majestic. The pageantry remains in my mind even today. The horses, the horsemen (the picadors), the matadors sweeping in, the smallish stadium with uncomfortable seats packed to the top with shouting people and these massive bulls. It is marred by death but underlined with a heroic grace – from the matadors as well as the bulls (even the greatest bulls of all time have names). I don’t regret having had the experience. For a little boy it teetered between horrifying and delightfully, and manly, brutal.

With that said here are five bullfighters whose names you should know (I have missed some but figured if I stuck with Andalucía and southern Spain I would be able to share some of the best “matadors” of all time):

1. Antonio Ordóñez 1932-1998

Antonio Ordoñez was one of Spain’s most famous bullfighters. Born in Ronda in 1932, he made his first public appearance as a bullfighter in 1948 and in 1951, aged 19, he appeared in the bullring in Madrid. In the amazing career which followed, Ordoñez came face to face with over 1000 bulls.

His father was “El Niño de la Palmas”, also a well-known bullfighter. He fought in Pamplona in the 1920s where he met Ernest Hemingway, who had developed a great interest in bullfighting. Antonio knew Hemingway as a boy and called him ‘Father Ernest’.

Antonio virtually retired in 1968 and turned to bull breeding on his estate near Ronda.

Following the family tradition, his grandson Francisco Rivera Ordóñez also became a bullfighter.

2. Francisco Rivera Ordóñez 1974 to present

Legend has it that Francisco Rivera Ordoñez was born to fight bulls. His father was the famous bullfighter Paquirri who died bullfighting in Pozoblanco, Córdoba in 1984 when he was caught by the horns of a bull named “Avispado” (from the Spanish for wasp, “avispa”). Antonio Ordoñez, his grandfather, was one of Spain’s most famous bullfighters. At the age of 17 he was out in the bullring for his inaugural fight at the Ronda Bullring, which his grandfather was running. That was the beginning of what has so far been a spectacular career. The bullfighter’s mother Carmina Ordoñez, was known as the Queen of Exclusives by the press in Spain. As daughter of a bullfighter, she surely understood better than anyone else the risks her son was taking by embarking on this career.

3. Manolete 1917-1947

Manolete was born in 1917 in Cordoba and died in the bullring at Linares in Jaen in 1947. What transpired during the years in between was the making of a myth and legend so great, the world of bullfighting in Spain will forever remember the name of Manolete.

This distinguished bullfighter was named after his father, who was also known as Manolete and was also a bullfighter. With natural grace and talent he rose to legendary status with a style of bullfighting that would serve as a model for generations to come. He was caught by the horns of a Miura bull on the 28th of August as he pe
rformed in the Linares bullring.

4. Pedro Romero Martínez 1754-1839

Martínez was a legendary bullfighter from the Romero family in Ronda, Spain. His grandfather Francisco is credited with advancing the art of using the muletilla; his father and two brothers were also toreros. As a child he participated in two bullfights in Algeciras then fought in Seville in 1772 and in Madrid in 1775. In 1776 he killed 285 bulls, fully establishing his reputation. He allegedly slew over 6000 bulls before retiring in 1799, all without a scar on his body. He was equally famous for being the first matador to view his job as an art form rather than just a display of courage. After retiring, Romero was appointed the head of a bullfighting school in Seville. At the age of eighty, a crowd looked on as he allegedly killed numerous bulls in a bullring in Madrid, probably the last bullfight he ever participated in. (All these guys were nuts)

Ernest Hemingway’s novel The Sun Also Rises often alludes to the legend of Pedro Romero. He is referred to as the “perfect” male, or a representation thereof. Romero was immortalized in Goya’s famous portrait.

Lastly. Probably the most famous bullfighter of all time. El Cordobes.

5. Manuel Benítez Pérez

Born in 1936 in Palma del Río near Córdoba and is known as El Cordobés (“The Cordobese” – “The Cordovan”).

This famous matador of the 1960s brought to the bullring an unorthodox acrobatic and theatrical style. (In other words he was a nut. Ok. a brave nut.)

His signature move was one that I can only envision was spectacular live. Breathtaking and scary and beautiful all at the same time. This original and dangerous technique which El Cordobés frequently demonstrated was first shown to the world at Anjucar. In a massive departure from the traditional formality of bullfighting he would wave his Banderillero (called a Columpio formally) away, then broke his banderillas down to pencil length, stand with his back to the bull as it charged, then moved his right leg out moments before the bull was upon him causing the bull to swerve which allowed him a moment to slam in the bandrillas from just behind the left horn. (Ok. See? That is nuts. A bull typically weighed over a half a ton and was typically slightly pissed at having been stabbed with a variety of sharp objects by this time.)

This maneuver was subsequently repeated in bullfights across Spain sometimes with even more dangerous variations such as standing with his back to the barerra and driving in the banderillas after the horns passed either side of him.

El Cordobes was born in poverty brought up in an orphanage in a village near Córdoba. He was a construction worker and petty criminal who dreamed of being a bullfighter (and achieved that dream by jumping into the ring and showing he could fight a bull). This was extremely rare to become a toreador with that background.

A highly memorable point in his career was his first appearance at Las Ventas, the bullring of Madrid, on May 20, 1964. An event watched on television by many Spaniards which ended tragically with the near-fatal goring of El Cordobés on the horns of the bull “Impulsivo”. Oh. You want to understand what a matador is like? Well, just 22 later El Cordobés fought again <again, this guy ,,, well … these guys … was nuts.>

There you go.

Now you know about a matador’s tailor and some of the most famous matadors of all time.

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

“But I will find new habits, new thoughts, new rules. I will become something else.”

―

Divergent

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

I admit. I have always hated the discussion surrounding brand loyalty (love, purpose, passion, etc). I always felt it was misleading and misled.

• Misleading: suggests passionate links to a brand are relatively commonplace and a brand could assume a place in people’s lives equivalent to real love or purpose
• Misled: if a business believes in brand loyalty they tend to treat loyal costumers, & initiatives, differently, i.e., they seek to maintain rather than win their business every day. It’s an odd version of complacency.

I would argue the biggest mistake we make with regard to discussing loyalty is to suggest it is a one dimension blob of ‘loyal people.’ The truth is any brand loyalty you can build is dimensional and not particularly deep <the latter thought is important>:

• Situational loyalty: my go-to brand in certain situations
• Default loyalty: all things being equal its easier to default to this brand
• Contextual loyalty: in this environment this is my brand
• Life moment loyalty: it could be age, specific event, current life focus you have (running, career, social circle, relationship, etc) that for that moment, or some extended period, in time that brand is your “it” brand

Note that none of those are deep ongoing loyalties. Loyalty is a fickle thing with regard to brands. Except maybe for some rabid few (and it isn’t really healthy for them even though you, as the business itself, love them).  Even Coke runs with a thread of fear that today is the day one of their ‘loyalists’ picks up a Pepsi, or a Fanta, or an Orange, & say “hey, this tastes really frickin’ good’ & then they pick it up again … and again … and, uh oh, ‘what Coke loyalty?”

Loyalty in general is an interesting topic, but add in loyalty to a company or a product or service or a ‘brand’ and, well, now we officially move into mind boggling category. Mind boggling because there are actuarial models, theoretical models, regressive models and just about any model created all with the intent to ‘build’ loyalty and get more money from loyal customers <some models suggest that should be called “encouraging ongoing loyalty’>.

From a philosophical standpoint I dislike the suggestion I can actually buy loyalty.

Yeah yeah yeah … in every single one of those models’ power point presentation, somewhere in the first five pages of the 110 page presentation, you will always see the cursory ‘you have to earn loyalty.’

It’s kind of a slight head nod to some ethical standard as well as a wink in the eye to the product has to be good enough and deliver upon expectations <to earn any type of loyalty>.

But. I guarantee that within two pages the expert will be launching into how to build loyalty and maximize profitability & sales from your buyer group <whether they are actually loyal or not>.

Regardless. Far too often I hear and see brand loyalty in terms of absolutes. And it is not. It is in degrees. It is dimensional. It is also measured in moments and not lifetimes.

Realistically <generalizing> loyalty is not something really earned. And I say that because ‘earned’ suggests that there is a balance of ‘loyalty credits’ available to you that you can sell off on occasion <mistakes or things that could be construed as ‘behavior of someone who is not loyal to me.’

Here is where I would end up on the ‘earned’ topic.

Fool me once, shame on you. <one credit used>

Fool me twice, shame on me. <no credits left>

Whoa. Once?  Yup. All this bullshit about ‘depth of loyalty’ is bullshit. Sure. I can be deeper than this ‘once’ I just mentioned, but 3? In a world seemingly rampant for choices, 3 seems a stretch.

The fanatic few.

Yes. There are always that fanatical few who wear the brand and live it, sleep it and … in general, these people freak other people out over their brand passion. But they don’t really do you any good. They are just some wackjobs that everyone recognized as completely bonkers over anything the brand may do and say <even if it makes no sense at all>. In other words, your most loyal of loyal simply freak people out.

Beyond that a brand has some people who tend to like you more than the other stuff they have purchased. This can be driven by a combination of price, quality and overall Maslow type stuff <this is the whole ‘brand is a badge I wear that says something about me to the people around me’ gobbledygook>.

An incentive program called Loyalty.

Brand loyalty is often more just an incentive program.  Think of it how like your parents treated you when you actually did clean your room. They made a deal with you.  They may not have said it in so many words but there became an understanding of a deal.

You cleaned your room and they didn’t nag or they gave you a nickel or they stayed out of your room. It was a deal. The best deals were ones that you <the child> actually had some vested value in and participated in building. I suggest that because people often think incentive is always about money. It’s not. One kid may have put the value on receiving an allowance if they sucked it up and cleaned their room, while another may have put the value on privacy <’stay out of my frickin’ room>.

Anyway. You get the point: this “deal” loyalty is NOT brand loyalty.

Brand loyalty marketing experts suggest things like “we are in the midst of a genuine marketing revolution, a revolution fueled by extraordinary data and amazing technology.” And “brand loyalty doesn’t just happen; you must make it happen.”

I don’t really know why, but that type of thinking and those words make me cringe.

Well. I guess I know why. It sounds manipulative. There are gobs of advice on how to consciously build loyalty. So much in fact that you may get the sense you can actually buy loyalty. That is sad. Sadly manipulative.

People are not stupid. In general we like gifts and as long as you are willing to give me gifts without asking for anything in return I will continue taking them from you. But please, please, do not misconstrue this for loyalty. I am just accepting unasked for gifts.

Here is where I argue with ‘brand loyalty’ program experts. The things they suggest has nothing to do with loyalty, but everything to do with smart business development – going after those who seem to like the shit you sell, reinforcing that someone made a good decision when they bought your shit and maybe, well, that’s it.

Reinforce a purchase decision.

Is it simply an argument in semantics that this isn’t loyalty? Maybe. But sometimes semantics defines your attitude. Because if you do agree with the semantics than you will also start thinking that all the personalization and one-to-one bullshit is simply a slightly higher level of reinforcing a purchase decision but you would be foolish to think this is creating any true deep loyalty.

Look.

Companies should do their best to build a stronger relationship between a customer and their initial purchase if possible. And, yes, you can be smart about how you go about doing it.

Doing things like:

• First and foremost recognizing that a purchase, while discrete in terms of value creation, is not a discrete event in the lifetime of possible purchased value creation. Understand that one decision always begets another decision. And it is in your best interest to reinforce the initial decision. And of course … encourage another decision.

• And while it pains me to say this, but it is true that not all customers are created equal. Recognizing those who purchase your shit a lot versus someone who doesn’t is just smart business. Inevitably someone who buys a lot of your shit knows fully well they are doing so and they like it when you step up to the plate and recognize that you know. There are gobs of models showing how you should manage the behavior <and attitudes> of return shoppers. Me? All I suggest is that your life becomes fairly easy if you simply admit that each purchase is important. And each purchase decision should be reinforced.

Oh.  Yeah. Another thing.

• Always recognize that solving dissatisfaction is always the easiest way to create a stronger bond. This doesn’t mean you should treat dissatisfied customers better than your most frequent shoppers. Simply treat each situation as discrete and understand if you satisfy someone who at some point was dissatisfied, they like you exponentially more than one who has been plodding along generally satisfied with what they have been getting.

Lastly.

Remember.

• Loyalty isn’t about selling shit.

Whoa. Did I just type that? You betcha. The moment you start believing that loyalty should be equated to sales you will, well, end up trying to be a salesman. And someone who is loyal wants some love not some schmooze. Semantics again? Possibly.  But any kind of loyalty is about value … not sales.

Anyway.

I bring up all my concerns with how loyalty is approached because most company research <across all industries>  show that the most significant declines in loyalty were primarily due to the self-inflicted wounds of misguided, mistaken management.

And with that information Loyalty experts started lining up with some innovations and technology wizardry & customer centricity on how to fix their loyalty programs.

I would sit all these wizards down, pull out my situational, default, contextual  & Life situation loyalty scenarios, point out that “not all customers are created equal” and suggest having some multivariate, multidimensional, multi one-to-one algorithmic driven loyalty program is not the answer.

Would I set up a basic loyalty program to reward hi-purchasers of my stuff? Sure.

Would I do much more than that? Probably not. We are not really in an ongoing loyal world at the moment. I would focus on treating each purchases as a discrete event and maximize each purchase seeking to create the highest level of value I could WITH THE TRANSACTION. Call it “recency based loyalty building.”

In the end.

I think its slightly absurd we have always viewed brands as solid homes for people. The truth is they are more often as solid as a lily pad in a pond.  While a consumer may carefully seek out a lily pad to stand upon, sticking to it may not be a careful decision. It just may be a decision based on some situational loyalty, maybe an irrational desire or some emotional twist of fate, all of which are conducive to hopping on to another lily pad at any time. This captures the flimsiness of brand loyalty. Consumers are investing lower & lower emotional investment into their decisions meaning that they will float amongst brands more and more. There is no brand love & passion is fleeting and one lily pad is as good as another.

You can buy short term behavior, but you cannot buy long term behavior.it is much safer to believe Long term behavior (which may or may not be loyalty) is dependent upon on attitude created from each short term transaction.

I think most brands would be much better off if they just assumed no one was particularly loyal to their brand and go out and create the highest value (functional, emotional, aspirational) with each purchase.

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

“I don’t need a cloak to become invisible.”

―

J.K. Rowling

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

So. This is about leadership and the trick of being present and absent at the same time.Yes. Present & absent. Visible and invisible.  What made me think of this? When I read this in a book …

… marveled at the way in which three clear liquids … nitric acid, hydrochloric acid and water … when combined produce color … and not just any color … but the color of a flaming sunset.”

This is invisible leadership – clear liquids creating flaming sunsets. Despite the sunsets we tend to miss invisible leaders more often than not. They tend to be silent or maybe quieter and certainly barely visible <unless you are paying attention>. Unseen because they are really good at remaining still and silent. They are the ones who have mastered nonchalant intent listening <but their eyes & ears never remain still>. Let’s be honest. In today’s world silent smarts is not exactly the way to the top of the heap. Which is unfortunate … because these invisible characters, who are often not seen or heard, can often have a visible effect on events – not only make things visible but also who create the colorful visible.

Interestingly … just like the formula I mentioned above <royal or king’s water> … they tend to become visible when mixed with the right partner or on the right team. They ‘mix’ in a way that makes their ‘clear’ have ‘color.’

Regardless of whether they attain color or remain invisible these people are invaluable. Everyone knows business needs ‘big ideas’ and needs to see the bigger vision. But it is quite possible we are forgetting HOW to do it.

Why? Well. In today’s business world if we don’t believe something exists … well … then it doesn’t. What is invisible cannot become visible because .. well … if ts not visible it doesn’t exist.

But here is a truth. If we don’t know that something exists, it really doesn’t mean that it doesn’t. It only means we don’t really know for sure or maybe we just haven’t been made aware of it yet.

Someone wrote evidence is not about proof or certainty or necessity, but it is something that can contribute to belief. This means we can have evidence without conclusiveness. This is the fundamental mistake when discussing evidence. The mistake in the belief or assumption that there can only be evidence for claims that are true. That last sentence is important because there is a vast amount of evidence for claims that are in fact false. The context here has to do with lack of awareness. The context here is the invisible leader or maybe how I said it once before “what if this is the person holding the universe together” <and you just cannot see it>.

When people dismiss that possibility simply because they weren’t aware of it, or haven’t made the attempt to explore it, or haven’t looked beyond their own personal usage/viewpoint — then they are all too frequently jumping to conclusions based on … well … lack of information rather than the presence of it.

And here is where invisible people earn their value. They don’t fall into this trap. They are the ones who can see the invisible things. The ones who can actually take clear components and put them together and create something tangible and colorful.

Regardless. The ability to be present … but invisible … is a knack.

The ability to be present but invisible and combine “the universe” to make it not only visible .. but colorful is also a knack. I am not sure they are trainable <I could be wrong> but I tend to believe they are more a knack, an innate ability, more than one that can be taught.

I do know that the people who talk the most don’t always have the most to say. I also know <okay … believe> that most of these people with this innate ability to find invisible things are really good listeners.

They listen to what is not being said.

They see what is unseen.

They find the thread of the true message in the sounds around them.

They find invisible things … maybe even unclear undeveloped ideas … and these things become visible in their heads.

They hear what is not being said and without any overt behavior combine the unsaid with the said into something … well … colorful.

Oh. And they tend to use silence like a weapon. While others seem to embrace some desire to speak and showcase knowledge or what an individual can do … they remain silent. They also sometimes have the ability to become attuned to the magic that can occur when all the others blend their ideas and abilities. And then they only act, become visible, if it is needed to strengthen that which is.

That last thought?

Well. This is all really tricky if you want to become a leader. We think of leaders as needing to stand out or even apart from the rest of the team.

Yet the most influential leaders also know how to blend the invisible factor with the visible factor. They know there is an appropriate time for standing out and apart from the group.

But, in today’s business world, potential leaders <and even some already in leadership positions> have a fear that blending in <remaining invisible even though present … and making an impact> will cause their value to diminish. And it does <not in my eyes but in the business world as it exists today>. While the ability to bring out the best in others, without visibly doing anything, is a true leadership skill and the sign of a true leader, invisibility often leads to becoming, perception wise, superfluous in an organization. I say that because being invisible but present, blending in and standing out, is an art. And I say that because having the ability to combine invisible factors and creating something wonderful and visible … is a skill.

Anyway. Think of it this way.

If you know someone at your company or in business who makes you ‘marvel at the way in which they are able to take three clear liquids and combine them to produce color … and not just any color … but the color of a flaming sunset’ you should pay them gobs of money or just make sure that you pay attention to them.

Because invisible is, well, invisible to pretty much everyone.

And anyone who can see the invisible is worth every penny you can pay them. Because the most colorful beautiful visible in business … is inevitably created from some random combination of ‘less than visible’ aspects. Invisible leaders exist in almost every business. Don’t judge people by whether they are visible but instead by what they MAKE visible.

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

“But I will find new habits, new thoughts, new rules. I will become something else.”

—–

Divergent

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

Well. I encountered a neat thing called the “20 Things” which is a little assignment this small consulting company sometimes uses with people they are considering adding to staff:  “What are the 20 things that have defined you – experiences, books, movies, people, travel, challenges, etc.”  When a friend told me about it I immediately began scribbling down ‘things.’ It was surprising how fast the important ones are noted and how easy it is to “fill in” to get to 20.

That said … and me being quite comfortable not following rules … I ended up with 15. They show up in no real order except number 1 and number 15.

I purposefully bookended the list with the two most impactful in terms of immediate and ongoing impact. 2 thru 14 can be juggled any way you want.

–          my grandfather

The greatest man I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. A simple kind man who honored integrity, kindness and truth above all. He taught me more about me, life and how to live Life <without overtly teaching> than anyone I have ever known. He remains my North Star for my life. I can only hope to be half the man he ever was … but at least he gave me something to aim for.

–          the pulled foul ball

Sports always came quite easily to me. And then I pulled a foul ball off a Tom Seaver fastball <before I struck out swinging on a slider which disappeared just before I was sure I had the fat part of my bat on it … hey, c’mon, the guy did win 3 Cy Youngs>. Regardless. I realized this was as good as it was going to get with me & sports. It didn’t mean I stopped sports, it just meant that I realized I needed to get going on the rest of my life.

–          The Hobbit

The first “real” book I remember. I devoured Hardy Boys & Nancy Drew until there were no more, but when I heard The Hobbit read to me during reading period in elementary school I entered a world of words & imagery & imagination — and thinking of ‘what if.’  It hooked me on books and reading and thinking. The first time I read The Hobbit myself I was still too young to see anything but goblins & elves. I have read it maybe 10 times <probably more> and I still see new things every time I read it.

–          Diplomacy <by Henry Kissinger>

I wish I had found this book earlier in my life. On the other hand, I may not have understood it earlier. Kissinger writes about diplomacy, but he is really discussing problem solving. He gave me one thing: “studying history is not analogous but contextual.” More people should heed this lesson. I certainly have learned this lesson.

–          Supertramp <my first concert, and more specifically, their encore song “crime of the century”>

I grew up in a house with music, but it all changed at my first concert and especially the encore. The encore was maybe 10 plus minutes of music and film with a growing image of hands on prison bars in space and I walked out of there in a thoughtful excited daze. I had words & notes & imagery imprinted in my brain from that point on as a powerful tool to inspire me to think in different & creative ways. Music has never left my life <and I have forgiven Supertramp for doing Breakfast in America>. Music and imagery is at the core of how I think and like to express myself <when it is possible and relevant to do so>.

–          Spike Lee

I was in my early 30’s in the audience when I heard Spike Lee say these words about his films: “I recognize everything I do impacts how people think … and even what they do … I have a responsibility every time I create anything.” It changed how I viewed what I did and actually how I did it moving forward. Basically I began assuming responsibility for everything I created. I have never stopped assuming that responsibility.

–          unstuck

I was a young manager with far to much responsibility doing the best I could and after one meeting my boss looked at me and said “nice job, they’ve been stuck on that for years, but you got them past it.” It was when I realized it appeared like my skill, or ability, was to “unstuck” people, businesses & situations. The truth is from that point on I actively began seeking things to ‘unstuck’. Maybe an odd version of ‘finding my passion’ or ‘doing what I love to do’, but I preferred thinking of it as making things unstuck.

–          St. Chappelle

I grew up in a home where we were expected to understand religious choices, but was, in general, ambivalent to religion. I was always indifferently interested in religion. I imagine I just took a pragmatic view on life in which God didn’t really enter into the equation. And then I visited St. Chappelle in Paris <across the street from Notre Dame>. As I entered the petit chapel and the sunlight filtered through the floor to ceiling stained glass it is the closest I have ever felt to not only believing in God, but actually believing I was in the presence of God. I am still not religious, but I respect religion and I imagine, in some small way, I better understand how God can positively affect someone’s life.

–          Madman Across the Water

The first time I heard Elton John’s Madman Across the Water album I think I immediately stole the lyrics from the album sleeve. The words made me think. The words made me create images in my head. The words inspired me to try and create words of my own that made others think & create images. That album made me a “words guy.” Plus. Every song on that album was just darn good.

–          suicide

I believe anyone who has been impacted by someone close to them committing suicide is never the same again. She was beautiful, kind and a friend. And she left with an entire life ahead of her. I imagine I felt like I did not do my part to show her what great things lay ahead of her. I vowed to never make that mistake again.

–          “I do not really care”

Graduate school. Case study discussion

“Mr. McTague … what would you do?” Me? “Well … I do not really care.”

Flippant careless response. It ended up on the front board for the remainder of the semester. And I should have been hung out to dry. I was technically correct that the point <of which I seemed to have grasped fairly early in business life> is that there are several ‘right’ or even ‘best’ solutions to a challenge, but I should have realized that words and how you articulate an idea & thought are almost as important as the idea itself. I vowed to never make that mistake ever again. A good thought can die if it is not articulated well.

–          “do not go gentle into that good night”

I have a love/hate relationship with poetry. I am fascinated with how words can be put together in ways that make you feel something inside, but all the rules of ‘effective and proper’ poetry drove me nuts. It was so constricting for something that should be so free. And then I came across Dylan Thomas’ “do not go gentle.” Whew. I found my anthem. Some call it ‘bull in a china shop living’ I simply point to ‘do not go gentle into the good night.’ It isn’t about dying it is about living. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. It was a great lesson.

–          Polly

My first boss. A woman in a man’s industry <advertising> who was in a senior position and did it her way, but with the flexibility to permit the next generation to flourish. She didn’t know shit about these new fangled computers that all the young people were talking about <this was in the 80’s>, but she put one on every one of our desks. She could do the same thing by hand faster than we could do it on the computer, but she kept sending us back to our computers. She mentored the youngest, guided the more experienced and managed everyone. She permitted individuality and built a team. Oh. And she set me up with her daughter. Anyway. She taught me how to be a boss and I was straight out of school. Most importantly, she taught me women were essential to progress & productivity in business. Simplistically, I owe everything in my career to a woman.

–          Kiev war museum <although I could have put the Holocaust Museum here>

Perspective. Nothing provides perspective in life than viewing the kind of death inflicted by one human on another human. And not just ordinary death but death in the extreme. I cried in both of these places. I could pound out some horrible numbers on my keyboard that would make your head hurt to express this learning tangibly … but why?

Simply. I cried. Humans can be very cruel if they are not careful.

–          To Kill a Mockingbird

My bookshelves are strewn with books I value and love. It is tempting to list the best of the best because they all made a positive impact and have been reread time and time again. But when one book is simply ‘the one’ why invest energy overthinking. To Kill a Mockingbird is my ‘one.’ I fell in love with Scout – her words and thoughts and questions. I still ask the same questions looking at today’s world and think of Scout’s thoughts daily. Harper Lee showed us that sometimes a child can see clearer than the most brilliant adults in the world. Listening to the young reminds us of things we have forgotten and they can actually teach us many things through the simplicity of youth. Regardless. Everyone should read this book.

That’s it. I had a bunch of other ‘things’ fighting for the 16 thru 20 slots but, frankly, they were just at a different level than 1 thru 15. I believe lists like this should be about quality and not quantity.

This is a worthwhile exercise for everyone. Everyone’s list will look different and some people may actually have 20 worthwhile events/learning moments instead of just 15, but who cares. It isn’t a competition. It is simply reflecting upon who you are as a person. This exercise reminded me we are all architects of our own Life. While many things are out of our control, many things are ours to do … or not do.

Is my list done? Gosh. I hope not. “This I am today … that I will be tomorrow.“

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

“In the business world, 800-pound gorillas run with the big dogs, swim with the sharks and occasionally find themselves up to their asses in alligators. And if they are not crazy like a fox, they can get caught like a deer in the headlights.”

—

Richard Conniff

===========

“An idea is a feat of association, and the height of it is a good metaphor.”

—

Robert Frost

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

Well.

One of the most discussed topics in the hallowed backrooms of marketing & advertising think tanks in the creative process is “the metaphorical icon.” This visual metaphor not only captures the essence of what it is they want to say, but can become some useable thought to extend out beyond the TV commercial, the magazine ad, the whatever tangible paid marketing tactic in the plan and inject itself seamlessly into culture <to the entertainment of the public and the advantage of the marketer>.

Here is the thing.

No creative person likes to talk about it <the extendable metaphor> and no one wants to aim for it because these kinds of ideas just kind of happen. You cannot ‘try’ for them they just are discovered from the strategy & discovery for a variety of reasons. That said. Suffice it to say, the more you want it the less it happens. And of course the corollary … the less you think about it the more likely you will think of something like that.

The only people who discuss it? Typically the corporate people <I want something like “x” company did, can we do something like that?>, scared marketing /advertising executives to their development teams <”x” company did that and we need to come up with something like that – please note the silent “you better” underlying these comments> or just hack senior management <we need a metaphorical icon or a mnemonic device … come up with one>.

Regardless. Every time someone suggests “I want something like that little <annoying> gnome that Travelocity has” or “can’t you guys come up with something like that giant asparagus … you know … the jolly green giant?” … creative teams cringe.

Heck. Most people with a brain cringe.

Anyway.

The problem is, well, when it works it works. Sometimes it even works in ways you could never imagine <ok … you can imagine … just never imagined it would happen with your idea> and sometimes it just works <and you have to avoid the temptations to make it better than the good idea it is>. Unfortunately. Sometimes it doesn’t work. And it cannot work in a couple of ways.

It can simply be a bad idea that is just bad <simple as that>. Or it can be a forced idea – one where an icon or visual device is forced in because it was demanded in the assignment. And it is the latter I am gonna mention here … and I get to talk about Giraffes. And some hotel. Oh. Not a hotel … an inn … Residence Inn.

This is an older ad – Residence Inn Giraffe:

Yup. It seems that Residence Inn caters to giraffe-like people. Apparently research must have suggested they must travel a lot <along with some other animal like people I guess as you will see later on>. Apparently this “Inn” has extremely high ceilings, lots of head space for those really tall people who are traveling all the time, for people to feel comfortable in. Oh. But the giraffe is in bed. So they have really long beds?

Ok. Sometimes the metaphor is kind of a stretch <pun intended>.

I get the point is a “spacious” room, but, I am not really sure a traveler wants to be a giraffe <even metaphorically>.

What do I mean? Oh. Don’t lions eat giraffes? Oops. The lions must stay at other places.

<note: there is actually a Hotel Giraffe in new York city … I have never been there … google informed me … apparently it is an “oasis of sophisticated style” which embodies the gentle power, grace and beauty found in one of nature’s most beloved animals … so if you do not want to go to the zoo and feel like a Giraffe … stay there >

Next up for Residence Inn?

An elephant. Residence Inn Elephant.

And they have used penguins.

Well.

I know their next product extension. A zoo.

Look.

I don’t hate the commercial. Of course it is well done <done by McGarryBowen I think> and metaphorically I get where they are going:

I imagine it all began with some brand manager standing up in the front of a room pounding the table saying something like:

“everyone listen … we ARE different … not only are we an Inn instead of a Hotel … but Inn rooms are bigger than Hotel rooms … LOTS more bigger … we aren’t talking inches but square feet for gods sake … spacious … almost cavernous … no … so spacious you can almost roam the space like the wide grasslands of the open wild.”

It was an impassioned speech based on what is probably a true, if not discernibly different or truly important, functional aspect semi-relevant to someone sleeping in a room who is ultimately there only to do business for the time they are out of the bed <and out of the room> but extremely relevant to the company and its employees.

Meanwhile, somewhere else in the same room, a brand planner lounged in a chair languidly using some big words to suggest that business people who stay extended amounts of time in a hotel <oops … Inn> have read every positive thinking sales/business book ever written and every time they step across the threshold out into the real world in the morning they pump up their confidence <and their fist> like they are going to battle. They need to stand tall with confidence. The planner even probably summarized the project brief with something like “Residence Inn. Stand Tall.” And everyone sagely nodded their heads in unison and said “brilliant insight.”

<note: somewhere in the back of the room a bored creative guy – who was kind of chuckling on and off again at the rambling idiots briefing them – doodled a giraffe standing in the middle of a room thinking “maybe I could shove this giraffe up some brand manager’s butt”>

So. When are giraffes relevant in marketing? Gosh. Maybe For African documentaries? Ok. Ok. Toys ‘r Us developed a fabulous idea with a giraffe many years ago. Geoffrey the Giraffe.  Fabulous. One of those ideas of which if they could have come up with it maybe two years earlier and had a CMO who had the kahones <and brains> to maximize it … they may have avoided some of the business challenges they inevitable encountered.

Anyway. I understand that advertising is difficult … to be entertaining as well as trying to communicate some functional useful reason for someone to spend money on you … but sometimes it becomes too far a reach in the use of metaphors. The biggest argument <slam> I am going to receive from the otherwise brilliant McGarry people is “but people remember the advertising <with positive perceptions.>”

(me) Yeah, yeah, yeah.

See my ‘awareness isn’t enough’ post <its not enough to just be remembered … that is a low unprofessional bar>.

I absolutely recognize it is a difficult category <the “hotel, motel, Holiday Inn category” to use Sugar Hill Gang ‘Rapper’s Delight’ lyric reference> but using animals, kids and “Free” is kind of a cheap advertising trick.

That’s my gripe.

The actual animals aren’t really relevant to what Residence Inn actually stands for … therefore … they must only be using the animals as cheap trick to create an ‘entertaining ad to increase awareness’ <and get noticed by us idiot TV watchers>. Nicely done ads though.

So.

This is about a specific dysfunction in business – communication (or over communication).

I think we all have seen plenty of dysfunction in the upper ranks of business. This may sound obvious but what this means is a lot of dysfunctional people are actually chosen for upper level positions. It is curious because I struggle to believe we are oblivious to the spectrum of dysfunctionality. So why would any executive actually choose a person with some type of dysfunctional leadership qualities to take an upper level position?
I actually believe it is because we are breeding a brood of dysfunctional managers <or less competent managers if want to be kinder>.

To discuss this thought I begin with an article the Economist had about the British East India Company (article: “the company that ruled the waves”).

In the early 1800’s, before there was email and fax machines and overnight delivery and twitter, this private company successfully, and effectively, managed a far ranging organization across oceans & continents when the only means of communication was letter <or in person> by ship or overland <think months>. The success of the organization was dependent upon autonomous management. Note. The British East India Company was quite successful. Yes. Of course there were some spectacular management mistakes and there were also the ‘unmanageable’ factors … hurricanes, war with France, privateers, etc. but in general the upper level positions were manned by competent decisionmakers who balanced autonomy and the overall organizational needs and vision.

A couple thoughts on this success:

1. Traditions & values. The tradition & values of the organization <lets call them attitudes> were so intertwined into the individual’s learning & values that not only ‘in the field’ likeminded managers were consistently reproduced but the ultimate leaders in London could confidently predict the behavior of those in the field.
2. Distance honed responsibility. Without constant communication and feedback in the field managers had to make decisions on their own. They were responsible for their actions … to the home office as well as to the livelihoods of those immediately affected by the decision.

Therefore, with few communications, business was conducted … successfully. This suggests that the immediate and constant communication/feedback does not necessarily create better managers. In addition you would have to assume the depth & breadth of the constant communication <beyond the time consumption> does not help develop managers who take risks, learn on the job and take responsibility.

I thought of my own experience and I, frankly, envision I would have become a really crappy upper level manager if I had learned my management skills in today’s world of instant feedback/input.

In my 20’s I had three out of town clients and a team in the home office which I didn’t see all the time. For several years I had to delegate & trust a team, make decisions in the field, access my own managers based on assessed importance to do so … oh … and assume responsibility <for the good and the bad>.

Note: I am not old enough to have worked at the East India Company in the 1800’s.

Anyway. My guess is that delegating did not come naturally to me and if I hadn’t been forced to learn to do so, and inevitably learn how to trust a team, I most likely would have never learned it. This is not research proven but I imagine most people who actually like to make decisions suck at delegating <and have to learn to do it>.

Interestingly <and I am not sure it is exactly the same these days for young people in business> at that time moving up in an organization was often a battle of attrition. Most people who moved up did so based on their decisions balance sheet. In my words, decisions were not ‘blurry’ … they were yours.

Today? Decisions are often made within ‘smart systems’ in which there are immediate communications gathering consensus and gaining input. In other words … decisions are blurry. And, depending on the organization, the smart system can be used by someone to smartly shirk decision responsibility and place it in the hands of the system. Just to conclude that thought … that means a person’s resume is then stacked with blurry decisions <of which no sane interviewer would ever admit to>.

Look.

I am not anti-email. I believe it actually, when used correctly, enhances efficiency. I say that despite the fact I do believe “real time decisions” are not often necessary <we treat each decision like it has to be made in real time and often it doesn’t> as well as they are bad decisions <made without the use of information that could be easily available if you take the time to get it>. Regardless at no time prior has there been an ability to access a store of information and a computing capability with to enrich decisions … almost instantly. Therefore, if used correctly a smart system can enhance decision making ability.

But emails <and instant communication> have several costs – from the honing of managers to poor time utilization.

Email use is a hidden cost for many businesses but a formula developed by researchers in the UK/Australia assessed how much of an employee’s salary is effectively paying for their email use. The formula, reported in the International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management, estimates that email use costs anywhere between £5,000 and £10,000 (about 8k to 15k) per employee each year.

The survey of company email use revealed typically that almost one in five emails was cc’ed unnecessarily to staff members other than the main recipient. 13% of received emails were irrelevant or untargeted and a mere 41% of received emails were for information purposes. Less than half of emails (46%) that required an action on the part of the recipient actually stated what the expected action was. And 56% of employees remarked that email is used too often instead of telephone or face-to-face. Ironically, almost half of employees (45%) felt that their own emails were easy to read.
But. This post isn’t about emails it is about developing good managers.

In a business world where it appears to me that hiring practices seem to initially filter <and increasingly post initial> almost exclusively on experience and qualifications assuming it is the most important factor of all, it ignores a reality where someone’s experience and/or qualifications is often … well … not really theirs. Oftentimes someone’s experience is simply experience of shared decision making responsibility – their main qualification is delegating risk and responsibility. And, yet, their qualifications are a list of ‘accomplished deeds.’

In my eyes, we are breeding <and rewarding> a group of managers whose strength is not making decisions. <yikes>

I truly believe you can take a person who is very smart who has the right attitude and train them to do a fantastic job, and be an excellent autonomous decision maker, if they have the right attitude. I personally prefer filtering on personality as a slightly higher selection factor than related experience.

Regardless. Even if we resolve the ‘teaching manager’ issues dis-functionality in upper level positions won’t ever completely go away. Why?
Well. Let me give this one a shot from personal experience not offering any solutions but rather offering ‘whys’ <and, by the way, I am not proud of number 2>. Although I believe it is fairly rare that a totally incompetent ‘dysfunctional’ person is elevated to a meaningful position <unless nepotism or favoritism is involved but let’s disregard those two> here is how I know I have been personally involved <please note: these are all partially outcomes of a traditional heieraccy oragnization and a distributed decision making model would resolve much of this>:

–          1. You believe you can fix them. The person is productive at some valuable aspect. Maybe even REALLY valuable. You convince yourself you can either fix the part that is obviously dysfunctional or supplement that person with someone who can fix it <deal with it> as part of the ongoing process.

–          2. Horse trading <the one I am not proud of>. Even with the greatest psychological/competency tests in the world you can still torture the numbers/information until they say what you want. Therefore a number of candidates get placed in a subjective discussion pool. In the end, sometimes, you are horse trading positions and people to get what you want, i.e., put someone here and you get someone there. Doesn’t matter if it is a small or large organization … I believe we all do it with good intentions (or how about … belief what we are doing will better the company).

–          3. Not ‘placing out’ flawed employees. Not many organizations have a ‘planned place out’ system for employees as they move up higher in the hierarchy. As people rise, and earn their stripes, we begin seeking to place them in an organization and not ‘place them out’ at any point. They have proven some value <albeit tied to a lesser responsibility> and therefore get assessed on value provided and not on value not-provided (or value they impede).

–          4. Today’s “speed to solution’ needs. Experience seems to count even more today than ever because of leaner organizations. At the expense of originality or innovation we are putting higher & higher value on speed to solution (getting something done). If you are good at the speed to solution, we seem to be able to overlook a slew of dysfunctional attributes.

Of course, none of these suggests that the decision maker is oblivious to the dysfunction and that is an entirely different issue. In the end I believe this creating dysfunctional managers is a big issue now … and certainly in the future. And I truly believe the incompetence is being driven significantly by instant overcommunication (which probably has some underlying issues like ‘less tolerance for mistakes’ and the concept of ‘share responsibility’ as well as managers who just don’t know how to delegate and instant communication continues to feed that behavior).

Somehow we need to resolve this issue or the only non-dysfunctional managers who will be in the upper level will be those who truly manage by numbers <because we know numbers never lie>. And that, my friends, is scary. The number crunchers will rule the world.

==========

“In the long term we are all dead.”

———-

John Maynard Keynes

====

“Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.”

―

Kenneth E. Boulding 

========

Well.

This is about business and how there is a constant short term measurement hammer pounding on you, yet, if you want to be successful long term you have to, well, master the long term view at the same time.  That said. Let me begin with economics and the fact as an undergraduate economics major I was bludgeoned with economic theory.

Invisible hands slapped me around with stimulus, growth, recessions and an odd mix of causal theory <which was, frankly, anything but cause & effect>. What they never told me was that once I got into the business world I would be simultaneously bludgeoned with a short term hammer and a long term hammer.

Yes. I mean bludgeoned.

Fairly early in one’s career you get hammered over and over and over again with regard to attention to details and meeting project objectives and making sure deadlines are met <short term hammer> only to find you get hammered with “you shouldn’t just do what is told we want you to think about the overall objective” <long term hammer>. This is your first taste of the short term/long term bludgeoning.

It only gets worse once you have to start reporting results and effectiveness. Suffice it to say business has an unhealthy relationship with, well, “term.” I don’t care if it is short term or long term, “term” is often the looming scythe in the daily, monthly & annual business pit & pendulum.

Despite all the silly “long term planning & plans” rhetoric, reality shows that we constantly think only about the short term … well … until the next term. This chafes with my economist learning as I was always taught economic theory always has to consider the long term.  This conflict is not new or one of the things that has recently surfaced in the business world. It has been there <although it may be exacerbated by current financial reporting milestone methodology> since the dawn of business.

Worse? The conflict even slides into silly trite rhetoric. There is a constant bludgeoning of “if we do what is right today everything will be fine tomorrow” <focus on NOW>.

Well.That tripe ignores that “tomorrow” isn’t 24 hours away <which would prove this thoughtless thoughtful thought correct>  but rather tomorrow in a business sense is 24 months away.

Looking thru that lens short term affect is more often than not, well, not the same as the desired long term affect. It may kind of look like it but over time the little differences become big differences.

Anyway.

This isn’t about economic theory this is more about business and managing short term versus long term. To begin that discussion let’s start with the premise that you kind of have your shit together and know what you want long term <vision stuff: where you want the business to be and what you want the business to stand for>. Because if you are in that position than I would suggest that becomes what I would call “our struggle to relax.”

======

“Relax.

You will become an adult. You will figure out your career. You have a whole lifetime; time takes time.”

Johanna de Silentio

=======

The whole concept of being able to relax in business is grounded in a belief that there is  time. A lifetime in fact. But. In a competitive business world it is difficult to believe, let alone accept, you actually have a whole lifetime. In fact. The numbers suggest you do not. More businesses fail than succeed.

However. I would ask all business people: is this a failure of imagination & belief or is this a failure to shed short term pressures? That just may be the eternal unanswerable business question. And while you sit there trying to answer that question <with the good intentions to actually do the right thing> the business world will be bludgeoning you with “short term, short term, short term” like Chinese water torture until you succumb to the short term.

It is hard to relax through all of this.

The business world does everything in its power to make you do anything but relax. Day in and day out it demand you do, do, do & go, go, go. And that in itself makes it damn easy to not think long term.

In fact.

If you fell into this trap you could quite easily believe you are doing all the right things, i.e.,  meeting the demands of the day & the week, all the while assuming that long term this insures success.

Trust me. This is incredibly easy to do.

Here is a business truth.

While short term seems like a necessary survival tool … time takes time. What I mean is that “relax” doesn’t mean completely stopping what you are doing nor does it mean ignoring the truly urgent … what it does mean is not making everything urgent and not stopping completely for every perceived ‘crisis’ that occurs. What it does mean is actually incorporating some thinking into all doing. I would also note that nor does relax mean investing lots of time to making plans. While plans are quite helpful in providing construct relax is actually about consciously addressing decisions without unnecessary haste.

Anyway. I think business has this incredibly uncomfortable relationship with “term” because it is uncomfortable with the “un-permanence” of everything good that pervades the business world.

Here is what I mean.

While we tend to embrace the need to be flexible and adaptive <but … in truth … may not actually do so in practice> we also tend to ignore that the need to be flexible is actually driven by the state of things – this is a state of un-permanence. Sounds uncomfortable, doesn’t it?

A business truth and a foundational business principle, which most of us purposefully ignore, is most things truly good in business, and many of the things that actually make a business successful, have an extremely high degree of ‘temporary.’ Wow. That sure does explain why no one can frickin’ relax, huh?

We seek perfection in all tasks as well as some permanence to that perfection and yet … perfection, at best, is temporary.

We seek to make effective plans to follow and yet … plans, at best, are temporary.

We seek to reach long term objectives thru short term steps and yet … the future is dependent upon decisions and not a plan <which is most likely temporary in true effectiveness anyway>.

Yeah. I struggle to find “relax” anywhere in what I just typed.

———————-

“The world moves into the future as a result of decisions, not as a result of plans. Plans are significant only insofar as they affect decisions.”

Kenneth E. Boulding

—————–

In the end I would suggest that business will always struggle with the “tension of the terms.” And most likely we will sit in offices bitching & moaning about which ‘term’ <short or long> is more important or how to balance the two or how to develop some silver-lined plan to manage the ‘terms balance.’ But most importantly … we will continue to ignore the real issue … the ‘un-permanence’ of all things that are business.

Why does this matter?

Well. If you actually believe that navigating the short term & long term aspects guarantees permanent growth,well, don’t forget all things business are un-permanent.

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

songgaar means “go back” or “the future” in the tuvan language.

burungaar means “go forward” or “the past” in the tuvan langaue.

<Tuvan words>

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

Yes.

I typed that correctly.

Tuvans believe the past is ahead of them while the future lies behind. The thought? They constantly look to the future, but it’s behind them … not yet seen.

To most of us this is confusing. Aw shit. Thinking about the past, present and future is confusing anyway.

We are told to not live in the past.

We are told to learn from the past.

We are told to treat the present, each moment, like it is the last.

We are told to plan for the future.

We save money for future needs while sacrificing some present needs <or wants>. We look to the past with an eye toward how we could improve ourselves in the future while doing things in the present that will inevitably confuse people around us, most likely have a number of people be hesitant to accept whatever changes we are attempting to sincerely attempt and ultimately make us unhappy, in some form or fashion, with ourselves in the present.

Well.

Now that I have typed that, frankly, I am not sure that we are ever going to be happy attempting to do all that we are supposed to do with regard to the past, present and future. Heck. I am not sure if I am being selfish focusing on the present, dumb for ignoring the past and irresponsible for not investing my energy planning for the future.

In addition, I fear that while I had a thought in the present by the time I typed it I had stepped into the future and the thought remained in the past.

<my head hurts>

Ok.

I do not know any Tuvans <the Republic of Tuva is located in southern Siberia on the edge of Mongolia>.  So they can probably truly explain the thought. My attempt will be, well, mine.

I like the concept of what they believe. I imagine, unlike many of us, the future to them doesn’t have all the trappings of ‘better’ and ‘more’ and ‘personal improvement.’  I would guess in the present they don’t seek motivation or clear off time to meditate nor wonder what the meaning of happiness is. I hesitate to say that their view of life is simpler because it implies we have a more complicated life. And we do not. Nope. We only make it so by worrying about status and how other people view us and what our title is and what type of car we drive or, absurdy, whether we are happy or not. Oh. And retirement. I imagine they don’t worry about planning for their retirement.

Anyway. Maybe their lives are more focused on the present and doing the best that they can within some frame of time they call “now” <which may not be a speck of time but rather a longer living moment>. It permits them to say that their future needs, yes, needs to contain elements of the past to align who & what they are. In addition, it seems they think by focusing too much on the future they are, well, sliding backwards.

Now. There is a thought, huh? Investing energy, or too much of it, on ‘future thinking’ could possibly be detrimental to moving forward?

Wow. Love it.

Ok. Here is a thought.

Most of us are smarter than we think. Not maybe in terms of sheer brain power but rather with regard to “making decisions in the present that will benefit us in the future.” We spend so much time planning for the future and assessing decisions yet to be made that all that time <which I would suggest could be called ‘the present’> just slip on by. In general, I tend to believe most of us know how to assess ‘now decisions’ and their possible effect on our future <within an acceptable margin of error>. That doesn’t mean we will always make the right decision. In addition some of us may get suckered into making similar wrong decisions more often than others <not having had that statistics class that taught us that each decision is mutually exclusive therefore the odds do not increase in your favor as time goes on>. Time teaches you that <by the way … that is called ‘the past”>.

Well. That was complicated.

So try this. To move forward you must look to the past.

Simple as that. No more. No less.

Chew on that thought.

Ok.

About Tuva.

The Republic of Tuva is the former Tannu Tuva, a country in south Siberia first annexed by Russia in 1914 and then absorbed by the former USSR in 1944. Tuva extends from the coniferous forests of the taiga in the north to the rolling steppe of the south. 82% of the lands of the country is hilly and the rest 18% are covered with savannas. Tuva has a lot of variety within its geography containing grassy meadows, boundless steppe, medicinal springs, beautiful lakes, mountain rivers fed in spring by melting snows, dusty semi-deserts and snowy chains of mountains. Tuva is near the geographic center of Asia and Tuvans are historically nomadic herders, moving their aal—an encampment of yurts—and their sheep and cows and reindeer from pasture to pasture as the seasons progress.

Regardless.

When I saw these two words I wanted to share. Interesting how different cultures view different aspects of the past & future. More importantly, maybe we can learn something from their view.