When you do things right | Enlightened Conflict

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

Velo (Velocity in a Scarcity world)

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

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

—-

Daniel Alexander Brackins

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

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

―

Ashly Lorenzana

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

About Velo

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

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

Abundance versus scarcity attitude

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

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

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

Comunicação and scarcity

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

Criatividade and scarcity

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

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

Think: Value on the Move

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

July 11, 2018 by Bruce

Bigger issues Facing Us, Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

managing a world within the real world

====

“Don’t lose touch of reality, it might drive you insane if you’re locked in your own world of possibilities for too long.”

—

Unknown

====

Ok.

This is part business and part social media culture thinking and part how the world is coalscing into smaller worlds, with world views, and some thoughts about those worlds.

The world as it exists within social media is different than the real world. What I mean by that is while we blather about some massively interconnected world it is far more likely you are part of a 10 million twitter following and that is more often than not is your world. Or. If you are part of a 5 million blog feed following that is more often than not your world.

This may sound counter to what everyone suggests about the role of media in influencing people. The truth is that the concept of ‘mainstream media’ <which, in my eyes, is being so poorly discussed and labeled similar to how political correctness has become the go-to phrase of the day> has difficulty penetrating an established social world. Tidbits get filtered in and then bounce around this parallel universe in which the facts create new constellations that the real world cannot see, do not see, when they look up at the sky. Inevitably all these tidbits feed on itself and only grow stronger and stronger the longer they exist within the world ultimately helping to share real tenets, beliefs, rites and established norms

The trouble is that, in this social world, thoughts and untruths and truths echo as equal opportunity informers. This begets a real world truth … and a parallel world truth. Sometimes they can be the same, sometimes just similar … and sometimes a parallel truth which, well, as parallel suggests … travels a lane that never intersects with the real world truth.

Some of us older folk and maybe some real world truth tellers gnash our teeth and pound the tables and imagine if we yell loud enough, or calmly tell the truth in maybe a different way <the ‘go-to’ thought by older folk is ‘be visual … it is a short attention span world’>, that somehow we can communicate the business truth or the Life truth or real world truth or whatever real truth which will impact the alternate world we are frustrated with.

Well. That is a slightly ignorant and totally egotistical view <as well as it will get you nowhere>. Whether we like it or not an alternate world is a real world in and of itself. It may not actually be a reflection of real truth or overall reality per se but that alternative world captures the reality of that ‘follower world.’

world you live in 100percent That world takes on the same characteristics of any traditional civilization and culture. Ethics, values, norms, dreams, despairs and hopes.

Some idiots call it a ‘tribe.’ I call it idiotic because it sells the world in which this social following lives short. Tribe is too small. The social world, and the online communities which is created in these different followings, are like small civilizations which may, or may not, interconnect with other cultural views & values, religious views & values and societal views & values.

Others may attempt to call this ‘countries’ … heck … Facebook is the largest country in the world. And, in some cases, this may actually be the correct metaphor … but in more cases it is not. Countries coexist. Worlds are, well, worlds apart. And entering into one of the larger follower social world groupings is absolutely like a world apart. Within the following are individuals who have come together based on a world view in which they do not see anywhere than in this virtual population <which are real people in a made up world>.

What I can promise you is that what each alternate world DOES coalesce around is like minded individual self-interest – views & values & aspirations. It is easy to see how his could happen.

It is incredibly easy to feel powerless in the real world but in this new world all you feel is … well … power. Power to feel what you believe and do <at least virtually at the moment> what you want to do.

It is incredibly easy to feel one person can do so little and now, all of a sudden, the individual finds themselves in a world together with individuals who think the way they do, say the words they say and want to do the same things they do. The world exists only in a virtual sense <and they now that> and, yet, they can envision this world being created as a tangible reality.

It is incredibly easy to block out all the noise <even things that may represent Truth> trying to infringe upon the beautiful sounds echoing in this virtual world.

Look at whatever news or information sharing research you want, but the majority of people seek one main source for their information. If that is true <which it is> than once you have decided to become part of a social follower world that becomes your main feed of information, truth and reality. Once you have decided to become part of this following it becomes your world and then it becomes obvious <at least to me> you now have a world mainly of likeminded people cocooning thoughts, norms, cultural beliefs, civilization characteristics … and desires, despairs and hopes.

Anyway. While I like to wax philosophically I am a business guy … and I like to offer solutions.

sigh.

I do not have a solution on how to penetrate these alternative worlds <assuming you want to>. But I imagine if I were to do so I wouldn’t barrage them with facts or pontificate about my world view <because it is counter to their world view so why would I care> but rather I would assess their world, and their world view, and figure out a way to appeal to some aspect.

And I would definitely better understand the core of this alternate world view — the self-interest. Because in the end, while this is a sweeping generalization, the main way to connect with someone quickly is to do something or say something that appeals to “me.” Me as in self interest, self esteem, self view and self actualization.

That may sound like a selfish world view but it really isn’t. It isn’t as cold & harsh as “what’s in it for me?” as the foundation for all attitudes & behaviors but rather it is a nuanced world view of individual survival within a larger world view. Think about it. If I see other worlds around me crumbling or spinning out of control in its orbit I see those worlds as a threat to my interests and ultimately my survival. Therefore I am going to want to be part of a world in which an orbit is established, a global climate of prosperity & fairness <however that world may establish it> & my world view survival is insured.

I say that because “what’s in it for me?” sounds too small for what I view in this alternate world this group of individuals are seeking as we try and view their individual self-interest motivations. To penetrate this word in any meaningful way we need to appeal to some sense of self … and offer a new world view in which the individual decides to find a different world to live in.

By the way. Parts of what I am sharing today pain me. It pains me because a significant thread of what I am suggesting is grounded upon two thoughts that go against everything I believe in

<1> a large group of people do not desire to be fully enlightened <or are okay knowing what they know and want to invest energy doing other things>, and

<2> I am recognizing that the individual has more power to create ‘worlds’ than societal needs.

Neither of these are incredibly bad in a larger view it is simply an acceptance I have acquiesced to the greater need – that there are worlds apart from the real world which need to be brought back into the real world.

That said. Instead of calling people stupid or suggesting they are ‘unenlightened’ in some way or ‘they just don’t understand what I am trying to sell them is good for them’ … maybe it would be more productive to begin our own thought process by recognizing these are worlds in which they are happy, seemingly productive and hopeful. In their world they are not missing things … they have things.

These are worlds of their own making and maybe we should think that people do not build worlds based off of fear or anger or despair, they build based on hope & dreams & beliefs. Think about that last thought before you start spouting off about “tapping into anger” or “driven by disappointment.” Things are not built from anger and disappointment, things are built by hands seeking a house for the future.

July 9, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Rants and Observations

incompetence through overcommunication

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:

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.
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.

June 20, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

happiness let down & resets

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

I finished by saying that it struck me that all the ethical systems I was discussing were after the fact.

That is, that people act as they are disposed to, but they like to feel afterwards that they were right and so they invent systems that approve of their dispositions.”

—–

Alexei Panshin

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

“Christmas is like candy; it slowly melts in your mouth sweetening every taste bud, making you wish it could last forever.”

–

Richelle E. Goodrich

====

Delighting the customer. Creating ‘happy moments.’ In the grander discussion of creating positive experiences in business, usually part of some misguided customer centric thinking, we seem to gravitate toward “special moments” in which we elevate the appropriate people’s happiness to a level in which they can actually recognize whatever happened was good.

We forget happiness is actually a Life formula in that we tend to make Life a zero sum game in experiential moments over the long haul. In other words. We naturally temper our happiness highs and seek to do things to actively fill up any emptiness a ad moment may have created.

This formula leads me to the post-happiness event let down. Someone once called this “happiness hangovers.”

I imagine any of us in the business world have felt this after a big meeting or some big trade show or some big thing we have prepared for and had some element of ‘showtime.’

That’s the same kind of funk we fall into after a holiday.

There are a couple of reasons this happens. One scientific and one mental.

Science.

The dopamine let down. Scientifically we juice ourselves up with dopamine in order to ‘meet the moment.’ Think of this as the feeling you get every time the email notification on your phone goes off… but every 15 seconds for almost 12 hours straight. Each ‘email has arrived’ notification sends a quick dose of dopamine to the brain, we get jolted <love the high> and then immediately receive another. When we are focused on this specific goal we get the rush of dopamine flowing through our brain and once the goal is achieved your body naturally reduces the levels of dopamine.

The body re-balances itself.

The dopamine high goes from high then to low. Eventually it re-calibrates to something finally normal <assuming there is something normal>.

Bottom line result? We feel bummed. We feel drained. That is the happiness let down scientifically.

Mental.

The positive feelings let down. According to psychologist Gary Stollak, psychology professor, most people have a “happiness set point.” Let’s call that a “5” on the self happiness meter.

Therefore when we get up for something and it concludes satisfactorily we rise to a high. Our happiness meter goes to 10 <maybe 11 if you are a Spinal Tap fan>.

Unfortunately your happiness meter balances out. That is partially why your happiest highs are often followed by depressed lows. The worst part of this aspect is what we fill the empty space, where that happiness used to hang out in & has now exited <the 11 to 2 gap>, with. We fill it with doubts, questions, regrets, what ifs, whatever else we could add in that diminishes the true happiness and high. Mentally it’s almost like we cannot accept the happiness was so good, so high, so as soon a the high itself is over we begin to look for imperfections & flaws with which to suggest “well, maybe it wasn’t that high.”

Bottom line result? We go high, we go low and, hopefully, normalize. That is the mental happiness let down.

Regardless.

My point in business and creating positive experiences is that it is impossible to always be high therefore there will inevitably be a low and you should seek to reset, or resettle, as quickly as possible. Effective resetting maximizes the feelings of the high and minimizes the low experiences.

This is hard because highs are, well, high and the aftermath is so anti-climactic versus the moment itself we tend to try and fill the space with stuff associated with the event trying to drag it out for as long as we can in order to put off the bad stuff I already pointed out.

For example, Christmas?

Leave the tree up.

Leave the lights up.

Maybe still play the music.

For example, Business?

Retell the highlight moments.

Replay portions & parts of the high.

Gather similar experiences <and even people> to relive aspects (shared experience).

While this happiness extension may seem like you are going backwards the intent is 2 things:

Its sole purpose is to alleviate happiness let down. Nothing more. Nothing less.
It is a purposeful attempt to address the fact we continuously try to invent things that approve of their dispositions. We hate to let it go even though our body is telling us we should. This usually occurs with the last lasting experience, therefore, the letdown. And maybe that is what hurts us the most. Our bodies have left it behind and yet we continue to try and stuff our body with the trappings of what was.

Happiness let down. We all experience it. I imagine the question is – is it really bad for us to do it?

Well.

Research has linked the let-down of perceived stress with an increase in flare-ups of pain and other ailments. One study found that people experience more panic attacks on weekends, and a 2015 study from Taiwan found that holidays and Sundays have more emergency room admissions for peptic ulcers than weekdays do. A 2014 study showed migraine sufferers, in times of stress, didn’t impact migraine occurrence … but a decline in their perceived stress from one evening entry to the next entry was associated with increased migraine onset over the following six to 18 hours<they called this a “let-down headache”>

All that said. Once something is done it is never really completely gone and we deal with the ‘let down effect.’ And while we hang on relentlessly to the trappings even though the event is done and gone at least now you know there are real scientific and behind we are so silly.

Look.

While I have written about the fallacy behind “manufacturing happiness’ or the whole idea of ‘purposefully creating happiness’ I do tend to believe you can affect the degrees of happiness. It certainly helps if your happiness is more likely dependent upon some realistic expectations or maybe viewing the little moments within the larger grind that is known as Life instead of seeking some larger more grand utopian vision of happiness and big events to define happiness.

Let’s say that of now. This is where I end. Business has to manage the discrete moments of now in order to maximize happiness.

There is no code or formula for this. But I can almost guarantee if you acknowledge happiness hangover or happiness let down you will most likely end up doing something that helps.

May 17, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

believing in something is powerful enough (leading a business)

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

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

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

―

Will Durant

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

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

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

—-

Golda Meir

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

So.

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

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

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

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

it exists truth example life ideas business

……………….. the idea ………………….

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

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

Us versus them.

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

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

Two thoughts on that.

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

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

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

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

To be clear.

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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

Always.

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

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

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

Ok.

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

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

Look.

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

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

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

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

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

April 30, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

I wish we would stop talking about big ideas

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

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

———–

Mark Payne

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

“With an apple I will astonish Paris.”

———–

Paul Cezanne

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

So.

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

People would think that person was crazy.

“We need something new.”

“We need to be unique.”

Well. Let’s face it.

Most new things suck.

Most new ideas are just bad.

And most new shit just stinks.

Which leads me to say several things upfront:

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

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

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

Look.

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

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

Huh?

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus

———

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

Abba Eban

———

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

Look.

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

No debate on that.

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

No debate on that.

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

=========

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

Tom Goodwin

===========

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

Fear

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

===========

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

H. L. Mencken

===========

Fear takes shape in organizations in a couple of ways:

Fear of being wrong or making a mistake.

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

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

Use data to make a subjective decision.

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

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

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

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

“With an apple I will astonish the world.”

I wish more businesses would think this way.

But.

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

That is just crazy.

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

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

Within finite often resides the infinite.

Within each of us ordinary people resides something extraordinary.

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

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

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

<sigh>

Surprise the world with an apple.

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

April 27, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

angry strategizing

======

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

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

————————-

Tupac Shakur

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

This is hardly worth fighting for

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

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

It’ll be a long time coming

But you got the message now

‘Cause I was never going

You’re the one that’s going down

One of us is going down

I’m not running,

It’s a little different now

‘Cause one of us is going

One of us is going down

—————-

Sick Puppies

<You’re Going Down>

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

Well.

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

Yeah. The Olympics has reminded me about competing angry.

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

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

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

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

some stupid opinions

some stupid attitudes

competitors say and do stupid things

and certainly there is a stupid acceptance of mediocrity.

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

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

To be clear.

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

And you know what?

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

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

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

You get a little angry …

This is stupid … there is a better way.

This is crazy … I have a better product.

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

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

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

So … you know what?

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

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

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

And here is what I know.

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

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

Get a little pissed about perceptions, attitudes and mediocrity.

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

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

Yeah.

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

April 26, 2018 by Bruce

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

the heart and the mind & finding business success

==========

“Win the heart and the mind will follow.”

=========

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

William Feather

=======

Well.

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

It starts off well.

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

It ends up usually not so well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That looks crazy even as I write it.

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

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

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

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

====

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

Audre Lorde

===

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

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

Regardless.

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

April 6, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

disruption (make competitors irrelevant)

——-

“’You’re dangerous’, he says.

‘Why?’

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

Simone Elkeles

——-

“Disruption is bad.

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

——

So.

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

Yeah.

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

Now.

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

——-

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

Chris Cleave

—–

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

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

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

——

“Disrupt or be disrupted. Disrupt or die.

Disruption is the most powerful idea in business today.”

Tom Peters

——

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

——

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

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

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

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

Jean Marie-Dru

——

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

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

Doh.

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

That translates into … yikes … change.

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

—–

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

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

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

Matt Shepherd-Smith, CEO, TBWA\London

—–

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

Anyway.

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

—

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

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

—

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

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

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

What do I believe <see: “know”>?

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

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

All of which simply makes it easier to be ignored.

Worse?

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

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

Why would anybody disrupt, and destroy, on purpose?

Well.

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

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

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

<Jean Marie-Dru>

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

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

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

To be clear.

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

It means being bold and taking some risk.

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

Technological disruption re-defines industries.

Cultural disruption always seems to piss people off.

Why?

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

What do I say? Fuck ‘em.

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

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

Look.

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

—-

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

HV Adolt

——-

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

March 13, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Life thoughts, Rants and Observations

no one noticed (and you did good things)

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

“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

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

So.

This is a business, and Life, lesson from Futurama of all places.

Doing what you are supposed to do, and doing it well, is actually one of the most underappreciated abilities in the world. Mostly because it isn’t noticed. Why the hell wouldn’t someone notice “things going right? <you may ask>.

Well. Most of us just expect things to go well and only notice when it doesn’t. We expect, well, competence.

Anyway. In case you have forgotten … Futurama was one of those random Fox sci-fi based animated shows in the early 2000’s. Typical of that genre <Simpsons & Family Guy> when the writers wrote a good show it was a frickin’ great show, conversely, and when they missed, they really missed <by galaxies in this case>.

Regardless.

I loved the premise behind this series … it follows the adventures of a late 20th-century New York City pizza delivery boy, Philip J. Fry, who, after being unwittingly cryogenically frozen for one thousand years, finds employment at Planet Express, an interplanetary delivery company in the retro-futuristic 31st century.

Anyway.

The quote. Here’s the entire conversation:

the Galaxy God: Bender, being God isn’t easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you, and if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch. Like a safecracker, or a pickpocket.

Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money!

the Galaxy God: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing.

When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.

Well. Regardless of whether this thought is delivered from some animated galaxy God or not … this thought is a big thought <which, I imagine, is the reason why they had the god character deliver it>. It is a Life truth. It is truth that many of the really great things in life are easy to miss, really easy to mistake as nothing, and yet they are … well … “right.” Everything is just in its place as if it belonged there all the time <and no one put it there or that way>.

My point? Goodness … heck … greatness … whether we like it or not … is stealthy. Even the big stuff can be quite stealthy. And ponder this. The people most likley to make things right <without anyone noticing> are also the same people who are most likely to offer small acts of kindness <which can be more effective than doing great, drastic actions> that ground the ‘no one really notice good stuff’ with with a true ‘doing things right’ selflessness.

Easy to miss … easy to mistake … when everything is great.

Oh.

The corollary thought to what I just typed is ‘things that are noticed.’

Sometimes if you try and accomplish huge, world changing things … they become engulfed in the spotlight. Yup. In the business of what you do, or are attempting, you gather well intended good supporters, sometimes even large groups of supporters. Unfortunately, even thought this is good stuff with good intentions more often than not you inevitably also gain people along the way who disagree <in some way> and even though a minority — they are loud.

And from that grows conflict.

And doing things right actually becomes debated.

And the debate is often in the nuance.

<note: that is kinda nuts when you think about it>

And the spotlight & the conflict not only bring notice but bring along the inevitable destruction of what is good & right. That, right there, is the argument for & the reason why great shit happens an no one notices. People who want to do great shit knows that being noticed tends to destroy ‘good shit’ and spotlights, in general, draw people who like spotlights and not necessarily doing what is right.

Cynically I could suggest now that what is better to do is perform the small acts … the ones that are unnoticeable by the mainstream public therefore you avoid the conflict.

But. I am not that cynical.

Doing things right isn’t about small … nor large … its just about doing the right things the right way. The kinds of things if you do it right … really right … people will not really be sure that you’ve done anything at all.

Now.

In today’s bombastic world it can actually become a bad thing if no one notices. Why? <insert ‘huh?!?’ also> Because someone else at the exact same time is telling everyone what they did … and yes … unfortunately … often the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

Aw heck. Here is the truth good people know. The value of doing the right thing is never in the credit. And we need to remind ourselves of that more often.

“I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”

Little things can matter. A subtle touch can create the needed ripples. And you can be the initiator, instigator or implementer … or even all of them … and it doesn’t really matter.

In fact.

How do you know when you not only did the right thing … but did it right?

No one notices.

Well.

How is that for Life & business advice?

Don’t be noticed <but always do the right thing well>.

<Note: I will not be making millions writing that book>

Being good <or God> isn’t easy.

You always have to be ‘doing’ and yet you always have to not be noticed.

Your reward?

Things are done right.

And people believe they did it themselves.

By the way. I will note that is also called “character.”

That said … I could have easily used the infamous character quote … “character is what you do when no one is looking.” But I didn’t. On purpose. Because the Futurama quote is a stronger point about character. It takes it one step further. Character is doing the right thing and not being noticed. You are facilitator for good and what is right. And have the strength, an inner strength, to just do what you do with no recognition … no outside stimulus.

You just do.

Yup.

Don’t be noticed <but always do the right thing well>. People won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.

But who cares? Being good <or doing the right thing> isn’t really about anyone noticing.

I know. I know. But if no one notices then, well, in today’s world I may get screwed. You know what I say? Being good isn’t easy but you sleep well at night.

March 1, 2018 by Bruce

Page 9 of 19« First...«8910 11 »...Last »

Meta