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

“Okay, I said. But remember, you can’t fix
everything in the world for everybody.”

“However,” said Ricky, “you can’t do
anything at all unless you begin. Haven’t
I heard you say that once or twice, or
maybe a hundred times?”
―

Mary Oliver

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

In business I am a self proclaimed renovator. That means I like to fix things. Well. No. It means all I know how to do is fix things and I believe everything can be fixed.

This also means I cannot build shit from scratch.

For me it’s all about improving and/or fixing. Interestingly I have a small group of friends who are fixers (while meeting a variety of business people over the years I haven’t really met many what I would call true fixers). I don’t believe the ‘fixer’ ability is really that unique nor special nor even that it takes excessive intellectual capacity, but I believe the true fixers remain a relatively small group because there is an inherent slightly warped perspective <I will get back to that>.

Anyway. I just talked to another ‘fixer’ about her job <and quitting it>. As usual, we spent some time talking about fixing … and what if we couldn’t actually fix something.

Now. This is a quasi-epiphany like discussion. Because fixers believe they can fix anything. It doesn’t matter. Whatever needs fixing we believe it can not only be fixed but that we can fix it. And I truly mean whatever.

We aggravate a lot of people (who aren’t fixer personalities) because we are also pragmatic respectful-cynical optimists. What do I mean? To believe anything can be fixed you have to have gobs of optimism. Relentless optimism. This isn’t ego. This is simply a belief that nothing cannot be fixed. Ah. But there is equal amount of pragmatism. Because you also have to be practical, logical and ruthless with regard to tearing apart whatever needs to be fixed to put it back together so it is fixed.

Those two characteristics, belief & pragmatism, bookend respectful cynicism.

A fixer is cynical, and respectful, of every component and part and piece and person of that which they are fixing. A good fixer recognizes parts need to be fixed to completely heal the whole and, yet, some parts don’t need to be fixed – just reconfigured with the new fixed parts. Therefore a fixer is cynical of all that has come before and currently is while at the exact same time respectful of all pieces and parts. I would note, as part of the respectful attitude, rarely does a fixer find what needs to be fixed was created by a blithering idiot. Business is strewn with brilliant people being asked to do things beyond their own brilliance. The odds are you are fixing some unintentional consequence rather than some intended misguided behavior.

Respect that which is.

Be cynical of what is.

A fixer dances this dance better than a winner on dancing with the stars.

Beyond the personal fortitude and characteristics fixers eventually need help (although it pains them to admit … oh … and the help recognition typically only comes with some maturity). This comes because Fixers never blame anyone else when things don’t get fixed- only themselves (it comes along with the whole “able to fix anything” mentality). It is a reflection of the personal responsibility to fix.

Anyway. The recognition of need for help is important <which is why you don’t see a lot of older fixers … not recognizing the help factor affects mortality rate>. Because although you get better at assessing “fixability” with time and experience once you are actually in the ‘fix game’ the focus is (laser like) is on fixing. And if you don’t have someone else around to clean up behind you or maybe cover your flanks it can get dangerously blinding toward the end game (without regard for an escape path).

Okay. Let me take something back. We don’t aggravate most people. Frankly, most people just don’t like us. Regardless. If you accept the optimism and pragmatism and respectful cynicism then you will understand this next thought. This means we will go as deep into the hole for as long as it takes to fix the innards. And keep going and stay until it is fixed.

There is an inherent danger in this. In fact. Lots of fixers die down in the hole. They just get sucked so far into the black of the hole they cannot see the way out. And worse, the unimaginable, what if we can’t fix it? We often don’t know when to try and stop fixing (a by product of the fact we just cannot believe it can’t be fixed).

When my friend and I talked we laughed (a little uneasily) about the unfixable to fixers. Admitting something cannot be fixed to a fixer rocks the foundation of everything we stand for. How do we deal with it (so we don’t spontaneously combust)?

Well. First. We justify things by saying “we cannot fix it ourselves” (we need others to be aligned). And in many cases this is actually true. We share this thinking grudgingly. True fixers believe all you really have to do is to show the way and others will inevitably recognize “the way” and will follow your lead (doesn’t have to be true following it can simply be replicating desired behavior). Why did I make that point? True fixers like to lead but that isn’t what they are all about. Its about …well … fixing. Anyway. The truth is that some things cannot be fixed solely by a fixer.

Second. As we gain experience and face fixing problems with significantly more depth and breadth we recognize there are truly aspects of “alignment” necessary to make the “fix” work. Therefore seniority, titles and responsibility are a means to an end. Most fixers would accept the title of “waste management apprentice” as long as limitless responsibility was attached to it. Fixers don’t attach self worth/esteem/actualization on titles or money but rather the ‘fix.’

Ok. I say all this because the big discussion with my friend was on a counter offer when faced with her resignation. (note: Now.  I admit. I am not a counteroffer fan – as a giver or receiver … I kind of feel it is a lose/lose deal. Well. Both may win short term -employee stays and gets what they deserved in the first place- but long term the employer is unhappy they were forced to do something and employee is aggravated they had to force their hand)

But the big discussion centered around “is what they are offering going to enable you to fix” as well as “would anything be able to fix” and finally “what should you outline as your ‘if I were to stay here is the only scenario’ counteroffer.” Note that all is discussed with an eye toward the fixer nirvana — fixing something.  And we had the incredibly difficult moment as we reached an “I don’t think you can fix it discussion.”

I didn’t like saying it.

She didn’t like to hear it.

And if I wasn’t a fixer (talking to another fixer) I am not sure she would have really listened.

Yet. In the end we both agreed no counteroffer was not worth considering unless it enabled the ultimate source of the resignation impetus – the inability to fix.

Ok. I wrote this for a couple of reasons.

–          Self-reflection as a fixer-renovator.

Strengths (or maybe not a strength but rather simply ‘what you do’) follows the general rule in life … balance. Because whatever it is that you do … it comes at the expense of something else. It is silly, if not foolish, to believe you are good at everything or the thing you are good at makes everything else unimportant. As with everything in life it is all about tradeoffs. I tend to believe that is why there is a relatively small circle of fixers. As with anything not many people are willing to sacrifice some pretty important things to focus on a specialty like fixing (which can come at a fairly high cost).

–          Reflection on what you may be good at.

I imagine I like writing about focus and recognition of what you really like to do as well as the good and bad that comes along with such a recognition. I am a really really lucky man (ok … possibly just an overgrown boy).  I know what I am in business (not sure I know in everyday life … still perpetually learning).

The good and the bad. And the risks that come along with the rewards. I admit that I was really fortunate as I passed through middle management.

I always had someone who would send me down the rabbit hole and let me go as deep into the dark as needed and make sure that I never got too lost in the dark as well they also “fixed” (or enabled) some of the really necessary ancillary stuff so I could fix. And, in hindsight, they also had the ability to recognize what could be fixed was fixed and pulled me out before I killed myself on the unfixable <note: not everyone is as fortunate>.

But. And this is a big but. I am a fixer through and through. Even now. Even though I know some things are so dysfunctional they cannot be solved by me, my initial thought is always “it can be fixed and I can fix it”. And I am no different than other fixers.

I say that last point just to say … despite the fact I am relatively aware of all this I am not sure it makes anything easier in the end. Other than the fact I have drawn a clear line in the sand with regard to what I will do and won’t do and what I will compromise and what I won’t.

I hope that is a good thing. It may not be, but it is a decision I am okay with. Because I am a fixer.

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

“The point of work is to be meaningful, not to be enjoyable. Its purpose is not to provide opportunities for joy, but to provide opportunities for struggling well.”

Zach Mercurio

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

One of the most discussed topics in business, and Life, today is meaningfulness. Meaningfulness is important on several levels but for this piece let’s focus on 2:

• The more meaning you feel in what you do the higher the effectiveness of the output (see: Exceptional doing can drive Progress and Purpose)
• The more immersed & connected you are experientially in an activity the more you feel capable of actually doing something with meaning (see: Maximizing people Productivity & Maslow)

Meaningful work has different dimensions, simplistically:

• connection (to people, tribe & experience)
• engagement (with the task & culture)
• effort (productivity realized)
• output (halo effect: success or measured productivity does beget a sense of meaning)

The foundation of all dimensions is traction. Traction in terms of senses & sensibility. What I mean by that is the more all senses are immersed (individually) in the tasks at hand AND these is a sensibility of being connected with a likeminded tribe (group) the more likely meaningfulness is attained.

That said. Every business should be thinking about connection, immersion and why it’s difficult for us to find the connection & immersion.

We begin with one word: traction. The world is increasingly noisy, increasingly task oriented with an increasing list of things to do within the same finite amount of time we have always had. All of this encourages us to skate along the superficial surface of things, i.e., never really gain any true traction.

Numb & disconnected.

Lack of traction inevitably creates a sense of numbness which translates into stress because of lack of connection. Many people attribute ‘numbness’ to senses being overwhelmed by the sheer amount of communications and interactions demanded upon us every day. To be clear. Ever since the ‘white collar job’ was created we have been stressed out by over communication and an inordinate pressure on efficiency.

Whether it was the stacks of paper <memos, point of views, letters, reports, presentations, phone messages to be returned, etc.> in the good ole days or today’s hundreds of emails appearing in your inbox our attention has always been challenged.

In 1955, the Hoover Commission peeked inside the files of three major corporations. It discovered, respectively, 34 thousand, 56 thousand, and 64 thousand documents and memos on file for each employee on the payroll.

Nor could the mushrooming informational needs of industrial societies be met in writing alone. Thus the telephone and telegraph were invented which increased the ever swelling communications load.

By 1960 Americans were placing some 256 million phone calls per day — over 93 billion a year – and even the most advanced telephone systems and networks in the world were often over loaded. All these were essentially systems for delivering messages from one sender to one receiver at a time.

What was next? The internet.  Society developed a way to send mass messages and communications from one sender to many receivers simultaneously. (Toffler)

We will not get into how all of this creates distractions away from efficiency because it is well researched and well documented. What we do suggest is this overwhelming amount of communication bludgeoning us creates a numbness to specifics and has several repercussions:

• A general sense of alienation and anxiety which characterizes the day-to-day existence of many people
• Employee Disengagement at work: 85% of employees are not engaged or actively disengaged & do not find meaning in their work.

Our goal here today isn’t to solve work meaningfulness only to establish the fact employees, for the most part of every working day, are numb.

• Conclusion:

We would also suggest this numbness is partially driven by the fact it is difficult to find traction points for people to engage therefore they simply speed along doing things in a relatively superficial (in terms of depth of personal & tribe/group engagement).

Forced engagement.

Since the beginning of time, regardless of the actual # of things calling for our attention, all of us feel overwhelmed with the sheer amount of distractions and things clamoring for our attention moment to moment. Businesses recognize this and have always actively pursued ways to force deeper engagement:

• Milestones
• KPIs
• To do lists
• Time management

All are attempts to create some focus, moments of traction, so we can engage with the most important things. while most of these initiative were created with the overall intent to maximize efficient productivity the real intent was driven aby a business fear as employees skated the slippery surface of urgent irrelevant engagement employees would not immerse themselves in the most important things. It was Eisenhower who once said: ‘The most urgent decisions are rarely the most important ones’.

In fact. Most likely the most famous of the forced engagement tactics is US President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Eisenhower Matrix:

Deciphering the urgent from the non-urgent and the important from the unimportant is important because misreading any of these things may create haste at the wrong time and waste energy & focus all of which simply drives us deeper into numbness.

That said.

Mostly with good intentions businesses and Life coaches have gone through extensive efforts to create traction points and methodologies to force is to connect at the right times on the right things.

Unfortunately, most of these things do not engage with the senses but are rather simply achievement based tactics. Achievements create a false sense of immersion (how could we not have been successful if we hadn’t been fully engaged) as well as a false sense of being part of a tribe (these are mostly individual based tactics from which we derive “we” achievement accolades). False may sound harsh so let’s just say forced engagement does drive a deeper engagement, thru increased awareness, but not a particularly deep immersion engagement. In our minds this is hollow traction. All traction is focused on achievement not the efforts within what is invested to achieve.

• Conclusion:

Forced engagement creates traction at a functional level. It most typically encourages  focus on productivity & achievement, efficiency based dimensions, than meaningfulness or mental engagement (beyond getting things done).

Create connection & immersion.

People, and businesses, recognize Life & work often takes on aspects of ‘grind’ (doing), therefore, actively seek paths to being more connected with Life and more immersed in what is happening.

While multiple ideas exist to address this there are two basic paths:

• “I” immersion – mindfulness
• “we” immersion – corporate events

Mindfulness is inherently an “I” connection/immersion activity. The idea is to find ways to become more present in the now seeking to find traction points to engage in what can seem like a swirling chaos of blurred activity. Philosophically this traction is an attempt to find some vividness & distinction in what is just a gray blur mental world.

Corporate events (trade shows) are business solutions to “grind” acknowledgement. The idea is to find lily pads in the sea of everyday sameness to slow down and connect with your mind (exchange of ideas with people interested in the same things you are) and immersed in an experience which engages some deeper meaning than simply ‘doing.’

• Conclusion:

Both of these paths offer positive benefits to people. Mindfulness encourages people to better engage in moments. Corporate events encourage people to understand they are not ‘in it’ alone and permit better connection with likeminded people. In and of themselves, they are quite useful in creating connection & immersion traction to self & tribes.

But there is another level.

Highest order of connection/immersion.

Eckhardt Tolle suggests this is living in the present. We partially agree. Most people understand you the business word and Life, pragmatically, does not permit someone to be wholly engaged in every single moment. It is mentally and physically exhausting and practically speaking, not the most efficient nor effective ay to get things done. However. Research shows that engaging in what Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi called “flow” moments do create overall lift in how you engage with Life.

Therefore there is a high value in seeking out ways to engage in the highest order of connection and immersion: moments in which All senses engaged + feel like part of a tribe (see: Inclusion not exclusion at work)

We could see something like a NASA space trip as the highest order of connected immersion: all senses are engaged and you are part of a smaller tribe of people (everyday person version of astronauts). Driving a high end car is similar: all senses are engaged and you are part of a smaller tribe of people (people who ‘get’ why that particular car experience cannot be substituted + everyday person version of professional drivers).

Conclusion: Immersion and connection Matters

We would argue seeking immersion and connection is vital to a fuller Life, but, pragmatically, being immersed & connected, even in discrete moments, reflects potential.

It creates a greater sense of “more you feel capable of actually doing something with meaning.” For a business this offers multiple rewards:

• An employee, individually, finds a greater connection to life beyond simply ‘doing’
• An employee who is engaged is more productive – efficiently & effectively
• An employee who feels connected with a tribe is more open to collaboration, teamwork & more focused on greater good objectives than the more simplistic individual reward.

====

“People are energy sources to be activated, not depleted, to maximize businesses. We flippantly discuss jobs as mundane and boring which only makes the people doing them feel meaningless and mundane.”

Bruce McTague

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

To be successful as an organization a business has to embrace, at least partially, what Gustavo Razzetti says “jobs are not functional.”  Organizations ask employees to do things, but should be seeking to have them want to do things. Therefore, we believe it is incumbent for an employer to find traction experiences from which employees/workers can at least get a sense of deeper immersion and connection. To us, the grid we offered upfront is simply the connected/immersion version of the Eisenhower matrix. You should use our matrix to assess worker experiences always seek to find moments in which to offer a traction experience in the upper right hand quadrant.

Yes. Even a moment is important. Why?

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

“The mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

If you do nothing, the mind will remain numb.

If you do company events like town halls & Friday fun days, the mind will relax but not really connect and definitely will not be immersed.

If you do send employees to Trade Shows or do create larger off-site corporate events, the mind engages with not only new ideas which stretch current thinking, the senses do engage to a certain level and the connection with some aspect of a tribe (likeminded people) creates a dimension of immersion about ‘numb’ but maybe not as high as fully immersed.

To be sure, the truth is you can’t send everyone up into space but you can send people to trade shows, you can have events at TopGolf and you can have events at places like the Porsche Driving Experience.

In the end.

We believe once a person connects with what it is like to be engaged and a business creates an environment for which those moments can be replicated, not only will employees be more engaged but productivity will increase.

===========

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

–

Silette <a fictional book character>

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

Well.

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

No one is innocent.

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

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

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

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

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

Do you ignore it?

Do you make excuses?

Do you deny it?

Do you worry about it?

Do you keep it secret?

Do you use it to motivate?

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

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

Oh.

The one that is probably most important?

Do you even recognize you are not innocent?

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

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

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

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

This comes to Life in a variety of ways.

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

Some of these people think fate is against them.

Many of these people think Life isn’t fair.

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

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

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

Look.

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted December 2012

——

“I know you can be underwhelmed and overwhelmed, but can you ever just be ‘whelmed’?”

=

10 things I hate about you

——–

“I am overflowing with words I do not have.”

—

Adam Falkner

====

“Aiming at brevity, I become obscure.”

–

Horace

====

So. This is about brevity and powerpoint <and, yes, I do believe powerpoint, when used well, is an effective communication tool>. Regardless. Is it possible to love brevity and the use of prose? If so, it is I that does so.

I wanted to share that thought before I said this: the concept of brevity has been bastardized in today’s world – especially in business. More specifically, it has absolutely destroyed the effective use of power point and, in general, communication in business.

Brevity just for the sake of brevity is … well … bad.

Note: I read somewhere that the average English word has just five letters <by the way, short is a 5 letter word>.

Brevity, when used well, provides the spark for ideas, energy, action and the space to say & do more things.

Brevity, when used poorly, creates confusion, lack of clarity, obscurity and inevitably … lack of progress.

I loved it when I read Brigadier General McMaster, US military, suggested that the brevity-driven powerpoint presentation in the military is an “internal threat.” Why does he believe that?

“It’s dangerous because it can create the illusion of understanding and the illusion of control.

Some problems are not bullet-izable.”

<amen>

And, yet, day in and day out everything in business has to be delivered as an ‘elevator speech’ or ‘a defining visual’ or, well, as few words as possible. While this sounds great … it is crazy. Business, in general, is staggeringly complex. The complexity with which successful businesses are successful can be staggering to someone who has never been involved in the typical business decision. Little things are rarely little. And little words may look little but, well, they are anything but a reflection of non-little things.

—-

“The little things? The little moments? — They aren’t little. “

John Zabat-Zinn

—–

To be clear. This doesn’t mean going thru the rigor of tightening, focus and conciseness isn’t valuable … it is just that simply relying on ‘brevity’ is … well … creating an illusion rather than depicting reality. I would much rather we focus on getting the ‘largest amount of truth into the briefest space’ <paraphrased from Beecher> than simplistic brevity.

Brevity, well used, can like be like a knife.

Oops. I didn’t say what kind of knife did I? A scalpel? A butcher knife? A butter knife?

Brevity, more often than not, actually creates ambiguity. It leaves spaces which someone other than you fill. And they fill it with whatever THEY think which is not necessarily what is intended.

—— 

“Ambiguity of language is philosophy’s main source of problems.

That is why it is of the utmost importance to examine attentively the very words we use.”  

===

Giuseppe Peano  

—–

And we wonder why it seems so often there is a lack of alignment between what we said and what was heard?

Shit. It’s not that most business people suck at communicating because, honestly, most experienced business people given the right forum and the proper amount of time are actually very good at articulating whatever it is they want to communicate. It is when forced into a ‘brevity-driven format’ that communication starts breaking down.

The people who can truly communicate well thru brevity is a very limited number — think maybe fingers on a hand. You can most likely find them at large conferences, TED presentations or on YouTube.

And we all want to emulate them.

And we all cannot.

I do not dislike the intent behind seeking brevity I just dislike much of the brevity output. While I love brevity I know that is neither my strength nor is it my ‘gig.’ I revel in the nuance and can be wonky at times. Therefore I seek balance. If in PowerPoint … I tend to alternate pages … one so brief it looks stark followed by a page which breaks the starkness into its beautiful fragmented complexity … only to shift to a starkly brief next page. This is what I try to do although I cannot claim success every time.

But. In the attempt I find I at least get closer to it than simply bludgeoning people with thoughts & words.

I dream of being able to communicate thru brevity.

If you doubt that just look at the very limited list of sites I link to on my site, each and every one of them is a vivid example of brevity.

Storypeople.com, gapingvoid.com deliver irreverent brilliant short satisfaction span brevity thoughts>. They say some really smart things. And in a way that makes you sometimes scratch your head. And sometimes laugh <while crying inside having lived through a version of it>.

I aspire to brevity in brilliance. But, alas, at my age I believe I am doomed to ramble. So I will live brevity vicariously through the ones who are truly good at it.

Look. I fully understand why we have this almost unhealthy pursuit of brevity — because most of us <myself included> waste the shit out of words.

—

“As humans, we waste the shit out of our words. It’s sad. We use words like awesome and wonderful like they’re candy.

It was awesome? Really? It inspired awe? It was wonderful? Are you serious? It was full of wonder?

You use the word amazing to describe a goddamn sandwich at Wendy’s. What’s going to happen on your wedding day, or when your first child is born? How will you describe it? You already wasted amazing on a fucking sandwich. “

Louis C.K

====

All I can really say is that we all want brevity … but we do not always need it. Maybe all we can do is … well … in the pursuit of brevity you should savor ever word because if it has no taste than you should not serve it. In the end, brevity is really nothing more, or nothing less, than stripping away the unnecessary and focusing on the necessary.

=============== 

“In general, people are not drawn to perfection in others. People are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

Hiding one’s humanity and trying to project an image of perfection makes a person vague, slippery, lifeless, and uninteresting.”

—

Robert Glover

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

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

—–

Saul D. Alinsky

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

So. The question today is: Is there anything marketing people can learn from a revolutionary?

I thought about this after fishing around for some new ways to talk about leading a business <I get bored with using the same words and thoughts over and over again> and I came across the Saul Alinsky quote ( the second one I used upfront).

It resonated with me because I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in some company “forward thinking strategy” meeting discussing how we would expand the business … stretching not only beyond the existing functional strength of the business but also stepping beyond the existing expertise of the employees <note: I can actually tell you ‘too many times’>. Expanding thoughts are usually cloaked in the infamous “oh, if we can do this, we can certainly do this” statement … or the even more dangerous “we have always figured it out” mantra.

To be clear … progress is always tricky. And leading progress almost even trickier. But, if you want it to be less trickier, ‘feeling secure’ is almost always a great step toward increasing the odds of success.

Now.

You can secure this ‘secure feeling’ in a number of ways – some reality based and some emotionally charged ways. And that is where Saul Alinsky comes back into the leadership discussion. He wrote a book called Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals in 1971.   He wrote it as a guide to community organization <uniting “Have-Nots”, in order for them to gain social, political, legal, and economic power>. What I loved about the Rules, beyond the rules themselves, was that Alinsky believed, when organized and directed well, the community can determine & achieve its purpose & goal. That thought, to me, is exactly the attitude a leader attempts to create <supporting a vision offered by the leader> within an organization.

What I loved about the Rules is the rules themselves are actually signposts for how to have a company compete in the marketplace.

That said.

Let me share the rules and some brief thoughts with the rules. The Rules:

—

• “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

Far too often … despite the fact 99% of businesses unequivocally state “our difference is our people” … a business forgets to actually build their power off of flesh & blood.

Money comes and goes.

Machines and infrastructure does what it does.

But people, flesh & blood, is the true power. It pays, as a leader, to never forget that. Empowering people is the most powerful engine you can ever build.

• “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

Every business I have been involved with has had an expertise. Uhm. The difficulty is that far too many leaders & managers wish the organization had a different expertise or they aspire to some other expertise.

I, personally, love the thought of isolating a company expertise, consolidating the inside expertise and using it like a battering ram in terms of progress. People love doing things well and being appreciated for the expertise they have <and not diminished by suggesting they should have another expertise>. Too many businesses make excuses for what they don’t have, or do, and not love what they do have & do.

• “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

When I saw this one I almost chuckled. It is so good, so solidly strategically right … and I would guess 95% of businesses never think this way. Oh. They may be happy  identifying a “this is what we are better at than they are” and competing with that in their hip pocket … but I struggle to think of any business I have ever been involved with who has sat down and said “let’s go outside their expertise <and consciously accepting they have an expertise.”

Crushing a competitor is always fun but ignoring an opportunity to outflank them is stupid.

• “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

Ok. Here is why I loved this one. I loved it because bullshit & hollow rhetoric and promises/claims are strewn throughout the business world. I can guarantee, with 95% certainty, I could pick up any business’s vision & strategy & ‘rules of the road’ binder and find a significant amount of hollow bullshit. What would happen if I consciously attacked one of my competitor’s hollow shit? Make them live up to their own book of rules?

I am chuckling. You would crush them.

You would crush them in two ways:

• External perceptions: everyone knows almost all businesses make hollow promises but get aggravated when it becomes too obvious that the promise really is hollow.
• Internal perceptions: almost every employee simply accepts that some of the company rhetoric is bullshit but they accept it because it doesn’t really affect them. But if the hollow rhetoric becomes obvious AND a pain in the ass … discontent grows. Bitching at the water cooler increases.

This is an awesome competitive leadership thought.

• “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

I admit. Ridiculing your competition is fraught with peril. However … having some swagger and vocalizing your swagger is … well … infuriating to some competition. It puts pressure on them. Ridiculing, specifically, what a competitor believes is their most potent weapon will … well … infuriate them.

Pick your path wisely but there is absolutely nothing wrong with swagger, infuriating your competition and putting some pressure on them.

• “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

Far too often some strategic guru envisions some tactic that will be smashingly successful and then attempt to imbue some excitement within the people who will actually do it. Imbuing excitement is like trying to convince me I will love Brussels Sprouts the next time I eat them <I hate Brussels Sprouts>. Excitement comes from within someone not thru “imbuing” or external encouragement. I think the best strategic thinkers find tactics that people enjoy AND can be smashingly successful. Unfortunately this is harder than you would think. But nothing really good is easy.

• “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

Amen. A lesson we forget every day <and should not>.

• “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

Tactical adaptation is possibly one of the most underrated strategic decisions a business can make. While we talk a good game on this in today’s ‘digital world’ the truth is that most of us chase numbers more than we think about outflanking and expertise advantages. That is kind of the bane of the ‘big data’ world.

Numbers are good in judging things but, in the end, people & behavior are not numbers and no matter how good a tactic may appear in a number it can always be replaced.

• “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

I am not an empty threat guy, however, ‘power is what the competition thinks you have.’ My point here is not to make shit up and offer empty threats but rather the more you can make a competitor think, and worry, about the wrongs things the better off you are. Stoke their imagination. Make them have high falutin’ meetings pondering “what if” scenarios.

I wouldn’t do this to replace any of the other rules … but in combination? Whew. This is good stuff.

• “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

Sometimes in today’s business world we treat tactics like spaghetti we throw against the wall and hope something sticks. I am not suggesting a business should invest gobs of energy developing operations to maintain constant pressure in INDIVIDUAL tactics but I am suggesting that strategic tactics tend to coalesce and operations can be developed to support them. Agility is the big buzzword these days but it shouldn’t come at the expense of having a ground game which constantly grinds against the competition.

I imagine the real point here is hollow tactics may generate some numbers for you but they don’t really make any dent into the competition <which, inevitably, is the key to leading an industry>.

• “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

I love this thought because, let’s be honest, we have become a mamby pamby business world. What I mean by that is at the first glimpse of any significant negativity we tend to retreat or retrench. Pushing through a negative is not standard operating procedure in a business today. Shit. Using a perceived vulnerability as a strength is almost non existent.

Let me be clear on this one.

If you do Rule #5 well, you will infuriate your competition. An infuriated competitor reacts <usually with some desire to inflict some negative pain> — they will violently react. If you stay the course, maintain your expertise, well … you can push through and own a positive.

More businesses need to remember this.

• “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

I call this “consolidating a win.”

I cannot tell you how many times <but far too many> I have seen a business “lose after winning.” It is maddening, depressing & demoralizing … and completely avoidable. Far too many businesses chase the success assuming they will be able to take a breath and take advantage of the success in a relatively timely fashion.

This is where ideas die.

In the take-a-breath moment.

This happens for a bunch of well-intended reasons … the most likely one is everyone invests their energy on the attack and a successful attack rather than diverting any energy & time to “what do we do when we are successful” other than maybe a framework of ‘what will happen.’ Unfortunately … frameworks do not consolidate.

The solution to this is so obvious I scratch my head as to why more businesses do not do it. Businesses always have two basic levels … the outside structure and the inside structure. The outside is the face of the organization and most typically is the one that pushes through and creates the ‘wins.’ The inside operations gets shit done … I have always had an ‘inside operations team’ well briefed and ready to go and insert them into the breach as soon as the win has occurred and have the ‘fresh team’ consolidate.

I could write an entire ‘consolidation strategy’ piece but suffice it to say your business gains value in a number of dimensions by doing it this way.

The larger point with this Rule is ‘don’t lose a win by not having a plan for when you win.’

• “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Well. Let me share the thought that first hit me on this … “a brand is a promise delivered in the store everyday” <this was The Limited’s phrase>. The point is that a business doesn’t exist if it doesn’t deliver upon what it promises.

That said … this is an important rule. As in a REALLY important rule that I bet 99% of companies do not even think about let alone adhere to. Most businesses target another competitor’s users & customers and go about trying to steal them <persuade them to switch>.

Well.

What about instead we attacked the company, the support network … the “promise” as it were … and make the people who actually deliver the promise start doubting, or start feeling less than secure, or just “less good about their brand & promise”? If we did this, we create a gap, isolate as it were, between what the customer thought they wanted and what they perceive they are getting or would get.

I love this rule. I admit I had never thought about it this way before … but from here on out it is part of my leadership toolkit.

———

Okay.

Those are some good rules for business.

But you know what?

It all comes back to the first Rule and my first quote.

Flesh & blood is the real power in any business and people are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

Honestly … I don’t think most leaders ignore the fact the people in their organizations are important, but I think we don’t elevate them to ‘flesh & blood is the power’ status.

And that is where the Rules come in.

Inherent to each rule, and the success therein, resides with the flesh & blood.

That is the most pragmatic of the pragmatic reminders for radicals leading a business.

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

“The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true.”

–

James B. Cabell

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

Well. When entertaining <as if I actually entertain> my favorite drinking glasses are my ottimista pessimista glasses. Italian glasses with a line etched in the middle with ottimista above and pessimista above.

Why? Nothing seems to generate a more lively discussion than one on optimism versus pessimism. Simplistically. most people like to bucket other people into one group or another. Yeah. It is actually a version societal ‘lableing.’ I, a self proclaimed “cynical optimist’ tends to believe there are not many true Eeeyores <pessimists> and not many true Tiggers <optimists> in the world. I tend to believe we have both aspects interwoven and sometimes even situational <albeit our individual personality will skew us toward one or the other>. This combination is a good thing per research:

–          according to research from the Master of Applied Positive Psychology program at the University of Pennsylvania, optimistic managers may do a better job of helping employees reach goals and be more productive. In a cross-sectional study of 86 employees and 17 managers at an Information Technology (IT) organization, researchers Margaret Greenberg and Dana Arakawa found that positive leadership correlated with employee optimism, engagement and project performance.

–          a German study stated that optimistic people actually face a greater risk of disability or death within 10 years than pessimists who underestimate their future life satisfaction. The reasoning behind this is that the pessimists might actually be a bit more careful about their future than the optimists.

So if we have both we can actually increase productivity AND avoid “disability or death.” Well. That sees like a good combination. The challenge is to have a mix of both while keeping your eye on the realistic ball.

Oops. No can do.

We are individuals and each individual will see reality thru their own optimist or pessimist lens and, even more importantly, judge others thru this lens>. Therefore as we view each other we see a certain characteristic as ‘bad’ or maybe just an unrealistic point of view <by the way, this ‘bad’ can be either optimism OR pessimism>.

Neither optimistic nor pessimistic is bad in and of itself.  An article in Psychology Today said:

“It’s simply not the case that optimism is “good” and pessimism is “bad”—although that’s how we’ve been encouraged to think about them. Rather, both are functional. And both have value.”

Interestingly … I often find that this is a discussion seems to take place between conservatives and liberals. Or risk averse and risk taking <which actually align with the political labels>. Ah. The conservative mind. In a 1956 essay “On Being Conservative”, the philosopher Michael Oakeshott wrote that someone with a  ‘conservative temperament’ is:

—–

“not in love with what is dangerous and difficult; he is unadventurous; he has no impulse to sail uncharted seas. What others plausibly identify as timidity, he recognizes in himself as rational prudence. He eyes the situation in terms of its propensity to disrupt the familiarity of the features of his world”.

——–

Well.

I am not sure I would go as far as our friend Mr. Oakeshott goes. But. It certainly explains the reluctance among many sane people to take the more radical actions necessary to make radical changes <even when they know they should be done>.

Regardless. If you use only one perception filter, optimism and pessimism both have major flaws.

In problem solving an optimist is at least likely to come up with a number <and variety> of different things to try <maybe one of the will work> … while a pessimist is more likely to noodle over what is wrong, what could go wrong and why in the world we are even facing something wrong … and do nothing <which pretty much almost never works>.

As a generalization this would suggest in survival situations an optimist is more likely to survive.

<please note: I am ALL for survival>

On the other hand. Optimists can be nerve wracking to be around.

They tend to always talk best case and then buy their own hype. And when something does go wrong  they inevitably blame the ones who pointed out what could go wrong with their plan <because ‘THEIR stupid, rosy-eyed idea didn’t fucking work’ is how one online writer suggested>.

Unfortunately every positive thought does NOT propel you in the right direction. Misguided optimism is as bad as overcautious pessimism.

Now.

I am hesitant to suggest balance as the key because actually achieving balance is … well … something called “inertia.”

Or.

Stagnation.

Or.

Doing nothing.

At least the optimists move. Because not moving and just wringing your hands means you will never discover something whether you may have expected to find nothing.

=====

“You can discover something in something where you expected to find nothing.”

Regina Derieva <The Last Island>

======

The pessimist doesn’t even have the opportunity to find something.

Lastly. A ‘realist.’ <as an option to being optimistic or pessimistic>. This realist label is pretty popular. Most people suggest being a ‘realist’ is all about someone downplaying the good things <minimizing the highs> and recognizing some bad things as inevitable <minimizing the lows>.

Well. Unfortunately this is not true.

A true realist is someone who makes completely unbiased judgments and who doesn’t see things through any kind of filter. Neither a positive nor a negative one. Unfortunately this means that no one can actually be a realist. Sorry about that. Psychology points out that completely an unbiased perspective is neither possible nor actually productive <most of the time>. In addition … when someone says ‘they only look at the facts … with no emotion’ … well … they <too> are lying.

First.

Two people are likely to feel very differently about the same event simply because they highlight different pieces of the available information <some call these pieces ‘facts’>.

Second.

Even if truly ‘dispassionate’ … someone with a positive mindset will concentrate on other aspects of a situation than someone with a negative mindset.

Third.

Neither of them are necessarily in the wrong.

Anyway.

Here is one thing I do know. There is something really exhausting about reality. What do I mean? Even the most positive optimistic person will inevitably be challenged <if not eventually ground down>. It is a researched factoid that positive beliefs are derived not from the total number of good experiences but from a low ratio of bad versus good experiences.

Whew. That can be exhausting. So. All that said. What do you do about being optimistic or pessimistic?

Well.

In 1949 Harry F Harlow, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, outlined an alternative  … something he called ‘intrinsic motivation.’ In other words, the joy of the task itself. Another guy, Daniel Pink,  discusses this idea all the time and suggests that for most complex tasks intrinsic motivation is a much more powerful drive than any external motivator and that a key part of this motivator is purpose.

“The most highly motivated people, not to mention those who are most productive and satisfied, hitch their drives to a cause larger than themselves.”

In other words, economic incentives alone do not cause individuals to perform complex tasks better <nor make them more optimistic or pessimistic>. So maybe it is the journey that matters the most.

Maybe it has nothing to do with being optimistic or pessimistic.

Maybe all that really matters is doing something with purpose – not an ‘end game.’ Therefore … what this means is you are not optimistic nor pessimistic, but rather simply a person with a purpose.

Anyway.

Here is what I really know for sure:

————

“All good things are difficult to achieve; and bad things are very easy to get.”

Confucius

———–

I always keep that in mind because optimism and positive outcomes really aren’t easy things to do and attain. And bad things happen. Keeping that in mind not only keeps me from being an Eeyore <or pessimistic with regard to Life and the world> it also probably keep me from slitting my wrists <figuratively>.  As well as keep me from chugging whatever alcohol someone puts in my ottimista and pessimista glasses and wondering what my Purpose is.

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

originally published April 5, 2014

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

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

=

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

———–

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

–

Jerry Garcia

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

——–

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

Unique.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The harming of a Profession.

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

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

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

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

Smart company those P&G folk.

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

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

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

Ok. Back to unique.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–          unique is rare and often fleeting

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

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

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

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

—

James Thurber

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

So.

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

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

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

(I usually answer my own question: no)

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

I liked it for 4 reasons.

1. It was pretty short – I love it.

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

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

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

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

Business people often confuse safe with smart.

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

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

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

Here is a silly thought. Maybe an unreasonable thought.

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

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

Now. I am not as smart as Eli.

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

It is an odd experience.

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

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

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

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

The point?

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

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

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

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

―

Will Durant

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

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

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

—-

Golda Meir

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

So.

This is about leadership & leading with an idea.

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

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

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

……………….. the idea ………………….

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