DrContrarian

Hey You Pt 2

2009-08-19T18:37:00.002+10:00

In the previous post I advised an additional number of readers (i.e. you ;-) ) that this blog was inactive.

Today, the no of subscribers DOUBLED?

Are you a robot? Or are you sending e a message?

Seriously - contact me via this site (subscribe there; that would be really nice) - if you are real.

But I am really going to stop.... really.

Hey you...

2009-08-18T17:19:00.002+10:00

Hi folks

I noticed a spike in subscriber numbers and you are the intended recipient of this post.

This blog is/was a bit of a personal blog with rants & raves that are a bit 'contrarian'. I have not regularly blogged here because I 'chickened out'. I did not want to risk saying something that might offend someone - if that someone was a client or potential client. And since I work for myself, the 'image' created by this blog would obviously influence the brand we are trying to create elsewhere for our business.

I do the ocassional 'interesting' post HERE - and I would love you to subscribe, but to be honest, you will get more out of it if you are interested in marketing/retailing and the world of entrepreneurship.

Sorry to disappoint you, but please try the other blog:-) if you are interested in those topics.

Cheers
Dennis

Go away

2008-11-01T10:28:00.002+11:00

Can all the 'experts' (Chris at 2thinknow excepted) pleas just piss off and keep your doom and gloom to yourself. You weren't around 6 months ago to warn us, so your 'predictions' now are just a crock of...

Insight 4129

2008-08-14T08:59:00.000+10:00

The world ceases to exist when you die.

Insight 3245

2008-08-12T08:57:00.002+10:00

Everything that happens is inevitable

Friends of Happiness

2008-08-10T08:56:00.002+10:00

Acceptance
Enjoyment
Enthusiasm
Stillness
No-thingness

6 Enemies of Happiness

2008-08-09T15:26:00.002+10:00

1. Reminiscence
2. Anticipation
3. Hope
4. Fear
5. Judgment
6. Possession

Consultant's Friends: 1 & 2

2008-08-07T18:58:00.002+10:00

1. Lapse in corporate memory.
2. Staff turnover.

Being diminished

2008-08-07T14:34:00.002+10:00

I can't recall ever having met, or knowing someone who has not been diminished by participating in the being of a Corporation.

Even as people are promoted... they are criticised in some way. Some type of change is always required, from everyone. And what is perfectly acceptable (even admired) behaviour today, is out of favour tomorrow.

It is especially evident when you separate from the organisation. Those who are diminished the most often take the lead in unraveling your legacy.

Who is there that has never hand 'an issue' to deal with? No one, methinks.

Not for customers

2008-08-01T18:11:00.003+10:00

Not approved for use on customers. Apparently approved for interrogation by US government.

Yelling at detainee
Deception: multiple interrogators
Deception: Interrogator is from country with reputation for harsh treatment of detainees; “False Flag”
Incentive or removal of incentive
Playing on a detainee’s love for a particular group
Playing on a detainee’s hate for a particular group
Significantly/ or moderately increasing fear level of detainee
Reducing fear level of detainee
Boosting the ego of detainee
Insulting the ego of detainee, not beyond the limits that would apply to a POW
Invoking feelings of ....

Rest of the list here

Universal Truth #314

2008-08-01T15:00:00.005+10:00

Be secure in the knowledge that all humans have insecurity in common.

The two biggest money-making sectors on the internet (porn and self-help) tap into this limitless pool of opportunity. (And any business model that does this, will succeed.)

2 Percent chance of success

2008-07-27T14:30:00.001+10:00

Commentators often talk about the ‘2- percenters’ - that is doing those things that are tough, have a low probability of success and yet goes to show an attitude of perseverance and commitment to the small details other people will overlook. (It is often used as a sporting analogy to illustrate the point (for instance) that you still chase down an opponent even if they have already crossed the line because the pressure may just result in a drop ball.)

This analogy is misleading because it focuses on the 99^th and 100^th steps in the percentage of effort. True success comes from the 101^st and 102^nd percentage points of effort. Sprint athletes are told to finish ‘through the line’ and martial arts experts will tell you that you get hurt when you stop the momentum of your blow on impact; you must hit through the brick to break it.

This is not the proverbial ‘extra mile’ that you must walk – which is merely an optional, nice touch. That would be gesture to differentiate yourself and applied at your discretion. Hitting through the brick, however, is part of standard operating procedures. It is the methodology that is applied with every single execution. It is what happens on the other side of the brick that counts. Everything you do this side of the brick serves only to get your fist to the point of impact. Making an impact happens on the other side of the brick; without fail, without question.

Activities that happen this side of the brick are: Preparing, Planning, Selling, and Serving.

Activities that happen on the other side of the brick are: Caring, Fixing, Returning, Forgiving, and Relating. Especially relating.

Secret to securing World Peace

2008-07-27T14:09:00.001+10:00

Focus more on the similarities, less on the differences.

Two thoughts

2008-07-17T15:36:00.002+10:00

One:
Anything = Nothing, and
Anything = Everything.
Therefore, 'Anything' is the most powerful idea.

Two:
Outcome - (Objective + Action) = Zero.

Powerlaws of the Blogosphere

2008-07-09T07:53:00.003+10:00

90% of Bloggers rehash what the other 10% generate
80% of Content is produced individuals and 20% by corporations pretending to be individual
70% of the traffic is made up by 30% of the surfers
60% of blogs are opinion pieces and 40% is mashed up 'findings'
50% of Bloggers are trying to monetize and the other 50% are pretending they don't want to
40% of Bloogers can spell and 60% can't (;-)
30% of comments are genuine and 70% are designed to direct eyeballs to their own site
20% of Bloggers know what they are writing about and 80% write about a niche they think they can own
10% of blog headlines describe the topic and 90% are designed to misdirect traffic to the site

USP is Dead

2008-07-02T18:07:00.002+10:00

USP = Unique selling Proposition.
It should have died a long time ago, because it inflates the importance of what you are selling, instead of what you are buying.

Long live the UBP.
UBP = Unique Buying Proposition

iPod is dying

2008-07-01T17:06:00.002+10:00

If the internet is ubiquitous and the content is hence 'everywhere'; can someone explain why there is a need for an iPOD to store music? Surely you only need a device to access this perpetual inventory on-demand?

I am sure people will get over the need to 'own' the music if you can play it anytime anywhere anyway.

Is that a new business model that will save music?

That is: Originators or publishers can own the content on a server and distribute free iPOD-like devices and charge a fraction of a cent every time the song is played. Kinda like mobile phones without the plan.

Differentiation

2008-06-28T13:35:00.002+10:00

Differentiation isn't all it is cracked up to be.
Differentiation only makes you different.

Not better.
Not preferable.
Not successful.

Differentiation may get you noticed, but it does not make you loved.

Homogeneity is Mediocrity

2008-06-18T09:16:00.003+10:00

Societies that are homogeneous will tend to mediocrity.
Conversely, the tensions caused by differences between groups of people in multicultural societies, is the force for growth and improvement.
Ergo: multiculturalism might be the tough option, but it is the good option.

Twitter is the tipping point

2008-06-13T08:54:00.003+10:00

Twitter is going to to prove to be the tipping point...
People will realise that social networks are only good - up to a point.
All the conversation about conversation is the sure sign that the internet is eating its own tail.
There is only so much information that is necessary to function.
There are only so many people you need to stay connected to.
The depth (and ubiquity) of the connection does not have to be as deep as possible.
People can only function if they have some space and some 'disconnect'.
It used to be called freedom.

RIP Twitter (and cousins).

Google is dying

2008-06-05T16:53:00.002+10:00

Google is dying.
Right now it seems invincible.
But like all good things, it too must end.
Competitors can't see the weakness in their their game plan (just yet) - but it is there; trust me.
And sooner or later, it will fail to see the NBT - and then the next Google arrives.
Such is the cycle of life - and business.

What the heck...

2008-06-04T19:55:00.002+10:00

I thought I would shut this down.
But since my official blog is pretty dry affair with lots of tips and hints on business/ retail productivity - I find that I miss the opportunity for the occasional rant. I think I will come back here from time to time.

For no, this insight:

Ignorance + Arrogance = Toxic workplace culture.

To be honest

2007-12-14T15:52:00.000+11:00

It really grates when people have to qualify what they say with 'to be honest...'
I reckon you should just be honest, right?

I wrote a review of a book (Selling: Powerful New Strategies for Sales Success) that I bought (on Amazon) recently. It was written by Kevin Hogan et al - someone whom I follow closely on the net, and whom I admire for subject knowledge as well as marketing savvy.

I gave it 2 stars. Seventeen other reviewers averaged 5 stars.

Should I have been brutally honest? (See previous post.)
Is that really what is wanted in 'comments' sections?
Is that the right forum?
If I can't write a better book, do I have the right to criticise?
How many of the 5-star comments are seeded by friends and fans and how many are genuine?

Having said all of that, I thought the book did offer a few nuggets that are worth the $20 -odd bucks spent on it. But then again, I think any book on the planet represents great value, because one sentence could change your life.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

2007-12-11T16:41:00.000+11:00

I attended the ‘Presentation Day’ at my son’s primary school today. As a matter of principle I put all my children through the public school system (as opposed to private schools). There are probably 300 or so kids in the school and has reasonable ethnic diversity. It was the principal’s last presentation day – not sure where he is going but he is leaving. The cadre of female teachers appeared scarily close to 5 years from retirement.

It was my first presentation day – you should know that too. I have successfully avoided any involvement with the school (from parents’ nights to fundraising events to presentation days) for the better part of 14 years now. My deal with the school is that I will educate my children (including a solid set of values) and the school can provide the schooling: call me if you have a problem, otherwise we leave each other well alone.

This is not as weird as it sounds at first; but as an educator myself I feel that riding shotgun for my child while the teachers are trying to do the best they can is not a good idea.
The only male teacher was the (departing) principal.

So much for background.

The Presentation Day ’07 confirmed my worst fears and upset me deeply. It was bad on so many levels, that I did not know whether to become enraged or to cry. As any self-respecting blogger would, I choose to wail into the ether.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh

Let me count the ways (bear with me) and then I will explain why I feel so strongly about this:

The choir was bad. Not just slightly out of tune, but really, really bad. 95% of those kids could not sing. They should not be in a choir. They should not be encouraged to sing, they should be instructed to keep quiet.
The band was hopeless. They could not carry a tune, but they did get make sure that both drummers got equal opportunity to bang on – if you think that is important.
The classroom awards (6 per class) included one for ‘Academic Achievement’ and the other 5 were all variations of ‘nice try’, ‘good effort’ and ‘good job sucking up to the teacher’.

Why is this bad? Because schools/ teachers have the misguided notion that participation should be rewarded. It is not a subtle distinction, but participation must be encouraged and supported but NOT REWARDED. What the hell is wrong with you people? What kind of life lesson is that for our children when you reward mediocrity and even outright poor performance?

The whole event becomes one massive lie where the adults pretend that the kids don’t notice. I have a surprise for you: if my 10-year old can notice it, 90% of the kids will know it. Life does not work like that, but it is OK to pretend that a good effort is equal to winning. The only kids who value any of these lame awards are the ones you least want to encourage because they are already building up a resume to become a prefect.

Life’s real lesson is this: Effort is its own reward, if it has any reward at all. But most importantly, effort is a pre-requisite. Without effort, there is no reward, no clapping parents, no results and no food on the table. Effort is the oxygen of achievement and no athlete is rewarded for their breathing technique. Simply ‘trying’ is not to be rewarded, that breeds a culture of mediocrity. That is why the band sucks. We should have had one kid doing an inspirational solo but instead we get a false choir.

Everybody who ‘tries out’ for the band or the choir should not get a place in it. Showing up is not the qualifying criterion; talent and ability and skill are what should be required. Don’t let the kids be lulled into a false sense of achievement when you should be encouraging them to search harder and work harder at finding their true passions.

Some years ago a teacher made a substitute in the middle of the grand final netball game. It happened to be my daughter, but that is beside the point. The substitute could hardly catch a ball, but it was ‘her turn’ and the teacher thought my daughter ‘had scored enough goals.’ How lame is that? The message: winning and losing does not matter, as long as everyone gets a go. What the hell is wrong with you people? Winning and losing are the left step and right step of LIFE. That is how you walk towards your destiny.

This is NOT what the Aussie ‘fair go’ means. It means – and should mean – that everyone gets an opportunity to try, regardless of race, sex or socio-economic status. But if you had a go and you are not good enough, you don’t get to be on the team unless you carry the oranges. That is life!

This attitude also clearly illustrates the intellectual snobbery that permeates the school system. It is funny that the sports jocks are turned away from the debating team and will not be substituted in the chess team just because they happen to be on hand. No sirree; unless you can actually play chess you won’t get picked. Unless you are Maths whizz, you don’t get picked for the Maths Olympiad. But it is OK to give everyone a fair go when it comes to Netball, irrespective of your hand-eye coordination.

None of the teacher could command respect from the student body by their sheer presence. There was no obvious respect for a teacher calling for silence. A teacher used to be able get absolute silence with one word: “Quiet.” There was respect, there was even a bit of fear. But mostly the students used to know there were consequences if they did not shut up. Those days are now replaced with something new. Do I hear you say that is a ‘good thing’? Well, allow me to enlighten you about how they now achieve ‘silence.’

The teacher would talk to the one half of the gathering and compliment them on being quiet, and then turn to the other half of the gathering and proclaim that they were now waiting for them to be quiet. Very clever, but psychologically manipulative don’t you think? The ‘good guys’ fall silent (the principle of consistency) and then collectively turn to the ‘bad guys’ who now have everyone staring at them until they fall quiet.

Here is the other one: the teacher instructs them to give three claps, then point their hands in the air, then rest it on the shoulder, then two claps and then ‘twinkle stars’, then one clap and fold in you lap. Close your lips. Hey presto: everybody is quiet.
Just brilliant how they induce compliance through suggestion and psychological manipulation, right? And this sooo much better than being smacked on the arse, correct? (But let's not digress.)

The principal spoke for a good 20 minutes – a farewell speech of sorts – and after I don’t know how many years and how many thousands of kids that he has educated, shaped and influenced, he could not make a single original, intelligent observation. Every cliché you can imagine: ‘co-operation…’, ‘working together…’, ‘without the help of…’ blah de blah de blah. Where is Mr Chips when you need him?

Is this the best the man can do? Did he have influence over the children? Did he have any fun or any sadness? Not one special kid in all that time? Was his tenure really defined by the wonderful achievement of $600, 000 of building works including air conditioned class rooms?)
What a sad, sad person to lead a school that might contain presidents, scientists and captains of industry.

My attitude has always been that my end of the bargain is to educate my children, feed them and encourage them and then let the school teach them the basic skills required in life. (This includes socialising skills as well as the 3 R’s.) I then pay my fees and my taxes (when I really have to) and hope the system works.

I don’t believe in the elitist system that is the Private School System. I believe it is in the interests of a country to have a public school system that is healthy and is rigorous enough to afford anyone – irrespective of their background – the opportunity for a great education. If we abandon the public school system, the end game is that only the rich get to have a decent education. We need a critical mass of ‘rich enough’ and ‘smart enough’ to stick with the public school system to keep it a decent system.

But if Presentation Day 2007 is really what is happening inside our schools, I must begin to wonder what the alternatives are? And am I doing my son any favours by keeping him in an environment that I hoped represented ‘an ordinary life’ – but may well be a toxic environment?
What the hell is wrong with us people?

Manifesto: 91 things I believe

2007-11-21T10:46:00.000+11:00

Knowledge is fossilised intuition.
Love is built on a foundation of fear.
Your senses bring the trouble.
Pornography is a mirror, Art is a window.
Passion is ignorance.
Enjoyment requires the temporary suspension of reality.
Fun is a requisite illusion (for sanity.)
Hierarchy is a circle.
Nothing is more important.
Personality is the projection of consensus.
All invention is rediscovery.
The end is radical step change.
Everything is natural.
Happiness is not meant to be.
Consequence is the shadow of living.
Poetry is the language of pain. (Pain is the language of poetry…)
Feelings are over-rated electrical connections.
Equality is an error of measurement.
Luck is being surprised by destiny.
A path offers least resistance.
You can only see as far as you can think.
Greed is the fuel of the universe.
Process determines outcome.
All people are afraid. (Because we think more than we are.)
Values are anchors of insecurity.
An ounce of failure weighs more than an ounce of success.
All the change of the Universe adds up to zero.
Being is degrees of dying.
There are answers to everything, just not enough questions?
The boundary of the universe is knowledge
There is only black and white.
The final emotion is always disappointment.
Failure is a definition.
Life is destiny.
The purpose is the purpose.
Everything is alive.
Fear is god.
Survival is the engine of the universe.
Sleep makes saints of us all.
The universe never ends. You never end. You are the universe.
Life is a pattern.
Counting is not possible.
Everything risks something.
Reality is not what it seems.
You need people as much as you fear.
The sky is not blue.
Everything is connected.
Self is unknowable.
Electrons, protons and neutrons = plants. Electrons, protons and neutrons = people. God is the difference.
Uniqueness is composed from similarity.
Wealth weighs you down. Poverty ties you down.
Wanting to know is the source of all unhappiness.
Wrong is only timing.
There only good. And mistimed, misapplied and misunderstood good.
Wanting to know is the biggest risk. Believing to know is the biggest failure.
Equilibrium is theory
Everything happens before the end.
Growth is destruction.
Planning hopes to avoid the unavoidable.
Pain is the only barometer of living. (A zero reading is only theoretically possible.)
Everything you learn prevents further learning. (Which is why it stops.)
People learn but cannot be taught.
The only truth is truth.
Trust is the temporary suspension of reality.
Truth is hope.
Focus is the enemy of adventure
Life is the ultimate paradox.
Living is dynamically building and breaking belief sets that conforms to your perception of reality.
There is no escape.
All people have a talent. Not all talents are apparently useful.
Commonality is unequal.
Community is shared self-interest.
Everyone is an apostle for something.
Fame is the cancer of personality.
Friendship is an exchange of needs.
Leadership is an illusion.
Limits are the boundaries of sensibility.
Loves lasts forever. The experience does not.
Man and woman are unequal halves.
People don’t need people except to be needed.
People don’t understand people.
Self is paramount.
People are hollow.
Equity is desire, not reality.
Flaws define perfection.
It never gets better, just different.
Nothing is the same.
Reliance is peril.
The more you want to protect, the less you are able to keep.
You are not in control.
There is a God.

The downside of upside

2007-11-17T14:18:00.000+11:00

The biggest killer of success is success.

(The fear of failure grows in direct proportion to what you have got to lose.)

This Contrarian principle has a number of corollaries:

Bigger is always worse
Innovation leads to less innovation
Growth leads to death

If you think you disagree, just add (ultimately) to the end of each of the above.

Such is Life.

The Shape of Life

2007-11-16T08:55:00.000+11:00

You must have figured out by now that I an a fan of chaos theory. (And systems thinking.) So I believe there is a KEY, a pattern to the universe that has not yet been discovered. (This image from http://aimath.org/E8/mcmullen.html)

It relates to the story of Garrett Lisi (39) who has developed a theory that unifies the theories about the universe.

Even if you are not interested in this stuff, it is a cool read simply to look at how he has 'positioned' himself in the world of science.

IT v.s. NOT

2007-10-24T09:24:00.000+10:00

What’s not…

I read a piece today that made me think about the difference and the impact of what is and what is not. The author draws a parallel between a style guide and a menu.

‘A manual of style () and a menu share one important point in common: both impose limitations. The word "menu" is from the Latin - minuere, to diminish. You can tell as much about a restaurant by what isn't on the menu as by what is: a chef doesn't try to cook everything, or to appeal to everyone's tastes. A stylebook imposes its limitations on the varieties of a written language: it's from these many acts of limitation and diminishment that a style is formed.’

Marketers are guilty of always focusing on the point of difference, the proposition, the benefit, the key feature. We often ignore what the product/ service does NOT do or offer.

Just like a menu tells you about what you can eat, what is not on the menu possibly says more about the restaurant and the chef than the actual menu. The claims you make in your advertising are as important as the claims you don’t make.

Apple Computers’ manuals never talk about a ‘crash’ or a ‘freeze’.

Apple Computers’ manuals talk about ‘quits unexpectedly’.

The latter statement simply says that the event of an unexpected problem is likely. The first statement says a whole lot more about Apple and the message it wants to convey about is computers and how they are positioning the product as something that is easy, non-technical and definitely not Microsoft.

There are numerous examples of when the ‘NOT’ is more revealing:

What you don’t wear
What you don’t say when you have an opportunity to correct someone
What you don’t drive
Where you don’t shop

Not sure who said it originally but the art of sculpting was described as starting with a big block of stone and chipping away what is unnecessary. Marketers sometimes focus excessively on trying to create the ‘IT’ – rather than considering what the ‘NOT’ reveals.

Two quotes

2007-10-06T17:28:00.000+10:00

Mandossian: " The only marketing genius is the customer."

Price: "Every cent spent on marketing activities is an admission of failure."

Here's a thought

2007-08-24T14:14:00.000+10:00

If you are befuddled by what Web 2.0 is all about, here is a great analogy (even if I say so myself):
Think...
TALKBACK RADIO.

Web 2.0 is that... on the internet.
(Click on the link of the title to see a cool directory of Web 2.0 sites/ applications.)

Cliches are good

2007-08-15T08:05:00.000+10:00

Cliches are usually/ often mocked and derided. (See list below.)

My take on it is that cliches (in a business sense) is really just the art of business grappling with becoming a science, and cliches become the language of the emerging science. Cliches are not bad because they are popular sayings, they are only bad if they don't add to the clarity and understanding of a discussion. Cliches only risk being a distraction if the through overuse the familiarity means that people don't listen.
I don't deny that some people go overboard - every wannabe consultant usually wants to coin and own a new buzzword that will become their point-of-difference, but that is price worth paying for progress.

Where would we be without the cliches such as "point of difference" and many others?

Click through to see the plexo

Magic becomes Mundane

2007-08-13T09:57:00.000+10:00

Check this out for a few part tricks...
Alas, the mysteries of the universe ain't what it is cracked up to be...

Want to be a CEO?

2007-08-09T15:03:00.000+10:00

Through my association with the MGSM (as an adjunct lecturer on the MBA program) I get access to really cool stuff. Now you can too ... and don’t say I never share :-)

Find out how you’d perform running an Australian company for a week by taking up the online challenge at www.ceosurvivor.com

Too much of a good thing

2007-08-07T16:05:00.000+10:00

I have been silent for a wee while. Working hard at being busy is one reason. The other is that I have started another blog and that takes up some time. (The new blog is more technical/ functional, and arguably better for business. Contrarian is just for fun.)

So just for the hell of it, I thought I’d throw in a random bit about a topic du jour: car safety.

Manufacturers vie for 5-star safety ratings, and as part of those desired specs you will find things like electronic stability control etc. I am all for airbags, because when the sh*t hits the fan, you wanna have cover.

But I really think that ABS and ESC is resulting in fewer people learning to actually handle those near misses. Not driving the perfect car (over time) teaches you the limits of what the car can and cannot do. This is just when you need when things go wrong. Like super-safe adventure parks have turned the children away in droves (because they are no fun), super-safe cars will just be pushed harder and faster because those who want to get a thrill out of it will do it anyway.

So give the drivers back some control and responsibility. (Will the day come that a driver will sue the manufacturer when a super-safe car makes an accident, arguing that the electronics/ robotics were effectively in charge?)

(The image is not attributed - because I don't know whence it cames. If it offends, let me know and I will remove it.)

Change this

2007-07-31T19:36:00.000+10:00

In the spirit of the internet, I thought I'd share with you one of the greatest sources of free, quality writing about almost anything on the net. Click on the link above, and enjoy...

Why managers fail - Pt 7

2007-07-28T11:29:00.000+10:00

Failure to assess your own competence

In many ways this related to the prior posting about inability to recognise weaknesses. But it actually goes further than that: people simply over-rate themselves. We have been fed an American diet of:

over-achievement,
positive thinking,
self-belief,

that we end up believing our own press. Capability and talent is distributed on a normal distribution curve. Half the world is below average. (Of course the readers of this blog do not fall into that half J.) But the reality is that not everybody gets to be no 1, gets to be the CEO or whatever.

Because people believe they are better than they really are, they end doing poorly in jobs/ situations which they never should have let themselves get into. (May I confess that I am not exempted.) It has been documented a long time ago that there is a Peter Principle at play in the management ranks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle) The phenomenon of overestimating our abilities is related to the Peter Principle: we push ourselves to the level of incompetence (the organisation keeps us there) and the end result is a dysfunctional organisation and an unhappy manager.)

Happiness is to be discovered within the boundaries of your own capabilities. Pushing those boundaries is one thing, crossing them is cause for unhappiness and a guarantee of failure.

How to win at Office Politics.

2007-07-27T17:03:00.000+10:00

The contrarian's view of winning at office politics.

Rule 1: Make friends and shape that into a network. You need them to help you win the war. No individual can beat the whole system. (S)He with the most friends win - no matter what stunt the other person pulls.

Rule 2: Make friends by GIVING and sharing and helping without an expectation of anything in return. (A paradox, I know, but that is how you do it.) You may be cynical about this, but your connections are what keep you 'connected' to the system - to state the bleeding obvious.

Rule 3: Good defense will win the day. Office politics is not about being able to trample allover someone else, but more importantly it is about protecting your own turf. This is often a cliched football analogy, but it is really true: good defense wins the game.

And for fun guide to OFFICE POLITICS - check this out.

Why managers fail - Pt6

2007-07-24T16:20:00.000+10:00

This series does not cover the ‘reasons for failure’ in any particular order, but if it did, this particular malady would be very near the top of the list.

Poor networking is the underlying cause of many, many failures. In any business, whether it is just you in a start-up, or whether you are part of a corporate machine, the art of networking underpins your success as a manager. The old cliché about ‘who you know’ and not what you know, is alive and well.

Your network is the system that will:

Alert you to a potential problem – before it becomes a problem
Identify great opportunities that you would not otherwise be aware of.
Provide you with resources & advice when you need it.
Provide you with an ‘out’ if you get stuck in a dead-end.
Give you a sense of connectedness when the madness and pressure are worst.
MOST IMPORTASNTLY be the vehicle that will allow you to help other people, and so help you build your credits in the bank of reciprocity…

More about this last observation at some other time, but suffice to say that networking is not about what you can get, but about what you can give. (Think about that J)

Why do managers fail – Pt5

2007-07-23T17:30:00.000+10:00

Part 5 in this short series. (Who knows how long it will be? J ). Initially I thought I’d stick to the fundamental, root causes only, but the reality is that most people will only read titbits, and not necessarily in one go, so I will simply highlight these reasons as they come to mind; whether it is primary or secondary cause…

Inability to influence.

Managers spend more than half their time influencing other people would be my guesstimate. Some time to do own work and some unproductive time etc. but the bulk of productive time is spent influencing people. The difference between a good manager and a poor one is directly correlated to their ability to influence others.

Failure is usually a result of an inability to influence – especially an inability to exert upward influence. It is something we learnt as children, but many of us lose the knack for making people with more power do the stuff we want them, or rather need them to do.

The psychology of influence is fascinating. But few make the effort to study it considering it is the cornerstone of our managerial success. I know I was guilty – even though I have a few Psych credits – and just took my ability to influence for granted. Now, being ion the business of increasing productivity through people, I have made a renewed effort to understand it, and I am amazed about how stupid I was; and in hindsight, most of my colleagues.

The skill to influence is different from corporate politicking, and different from power plays. Influencing skills is simply a sophisticated form of manipulation – as is every sales process, every manager/employee interaction, every meeting…

Once your eyes are opened to it, you will be amazed at what goes on around you. And my advice is simple: get good or fail.

Why Managers Fail Pt4 - Personal Disclosure

2007-07-21T15:34:00.000+10:00

I must be honest about the previous post and admit the weakness that I have fallen in love with. (Blogs should be about honesty, right? And besides, and can’t just point the finger at everyone else without acknowledging my own failures; that would be hypocritical and that is NOT one of my weaknesses.)

My own weakness parading as a strength is that I ~~can be~~ am argumentative. This is because I believe TRUTH is paramount (at least my version of the truth). And I have been ‘truthful’ to the point of hurting people’s feelings: as long as the truth can prevail.

It is not just a weakness; it is quite sadly more than that. But instead of dealing with the cause of it, I have learned to justify it to myself to the extent that I have even become proud of it and started justifying it to everyone else. It is quite easy to put truth on a pedestal; how can anyone argue against ‘honesty’ as positive attribute?

But the fact is that no society can function properly without the small white lies that serve to oil the wheels of social interaction. (Jim Carrey’s movie Liar Liar proved the point.) I have gone as far as jeopardising my career and sacrificing it at the altar of TRUTH just because I have fallen in love with my own honesty. The underlying cause of the preoccupation is probably some unglamorous insecurity, but because I had elevated the lack of social skill to a desirable trait, I never really learned to deal with it properly.

Why do managers fail? - Pt 3

2007-07-21T15:18:00.000+10:00

Weaknesses parading as strengths

Managers, myself included, often refuse to acknowledge that our personalities are defective; or at the very least that we have traits and attitudes (that are in essence weaknesses) but that we have become comfortable with and have grown to accept and even like.

We often see this in interview when candidates are asked about their weaknesses. The response is usually to identify a weakness that can equally be perceived to be a strength; to wit: “I am sometimes too detailed orientated.” This is just another demonstration of how misguided people can sometimes be. The sad thing is, the candidate parades the ‘weakness’ only because they know some people might see that as a weakness, but deep down they do not really believe it is a weakness. I have interviewed 100s – and I am not exaggerating here – and I have NEVER met a candidate who has answered the question with anything that can remotely be considered to be a realistic and truthful representation of a meaningful weakness. (I don’t think it is a very good interviewing question, but became intellectually curious about how people respond, and hence continued asking it in various guises.)

As soon as you don’t recognise a weakness for what it is, you are opening yourself up for attack (at worst) and setting yourself up for failure (best case). If you don’t recognise it for what it is (a weakness) then you fail to deal with it. And failing to deal with it is dealing in failure. There is probably a deep underlying psychological cause (rationalisation?) but it is nevertheless very dangerous.

Some examples are:

Judgemental attitudes >> Translation: “I am just very critical”.

Anally retentive habits >> Translation: “I am just a bit of a perfectionist”.

Lack of empathy >> Translation: “I am very focussed on the outcome.”

I think you get the picture. The world is full of arseholes, but no one has ever admitted to being one. AA teaches us that the first step to recovery is: Admission :-)

Why Managers Fail – Pt2

2007-07-13T17:11:00.000+10:00

Another reason for managerial failure is the total under-estimation of emotion; and its corollary, over-estimating the importance of the rational or intellectual.

Smart people (as a group) are no more successful than any other group of people at managing. I have no research to back this up, but I would even hazard a guess that they may even be statistically under-represented. (Now there is a thesis for you…)

Organisations do not tick on rational decision-making. It ticks on culture. And strategy. And innovation. But it certainly does not tick on objectivity and cold hard facts. Every meaningful decision that is made in an organisation is a compromise. (A camel is a horse designed by a committee is not just humorous – it contains more than a grain of truth.)

Decisions are made based on politics and the dispersion of power. Not on who happens to be right. If you stake your career on your ability to find intelligent, rational solutions you are bound to fail. The key success factor is your ability to influence people to accept the decision. And people make that decision based on how they feel. And how the result will make them feel.

The two misleading things (essentially variations of the same thing) that throw most people are:

Presentations, proposal and arguments are always based on ‘logic’ or ‘research.’ This is simply part of the front. Managers must be seen to be considering the numbers. You can never be honest about making a decision based on emotion. (Rarely can a leader at the very top admit to making gut-decisions, but that luxury is not available to managers.
People who use facts and figures to make decisions seem to be doing so based on the facts and figures, but they are not. Even the apparent rationalists base their arguments on how the ‘thinking process’ makes them feel. They find comfort in the numbers; using ‘facts’ makes them feel secure – but it is not about what the numbers are saying. The reality is once you have advanced up the management tree, the vast majority of decisions involve significant subjectivity (all shades of grey) and numbers can be made to say anything. (If you don’t believe me, do some research on how problems are and can be framed differently and you will see how very different results are obtained from the same data.)

If you think a corporation is rational and that being rational is a key success factor, you are wrong and bound to fail. Facts and figures are simply the vehicle to be used to manipulate emotions of the decision-makers to arrive at the decision you want.

Why managers fail – Part 1

2007-07-11T19:24:00.000+10:00

There are a host of reasons. I have studies enough, learned enough and failed enough to have some compelling arguments as to why managers fail…

Over time I’ll explore a few of those. The obvious one is incompetence – but I will ignore that as a reason. Arguably that is the error of the manager’s manager more than anything, but most importantly; I don’t believe that people reading this would fall into that category. And if you are incompetent – at managing only of course -

The number one reason – without any doubt in my mind is misunderstanding or underestimating the nature of POWER.

Do you have power?
Do you know who (else) has power?
Do you know what you derive it from?
Do you know why you have it?
Do you know how to use it?
Do you know when to use it?
Do you know how it is used against you?
Are you super aware of how it ebbs and flows on a daily basis, from meeting to meeting, from person to person?
Are you using power ‘premeditatively’ in every situation?
Do you know how to share it?
Do you know how to increase it?
Are you hungry for it? Hungry enough to hurt someone else?

If you answer in the negative on any of these, that alone would be cause for failure. I know; I have been there. Power – and not the type that is conferred upon you because of a title or a job – is the single most important commodity that exists in an organisation. If you don’t believe it and if you don’t act accordingly, you will also fail. If you only have a vague understanding and if you are vaguely aware that some people are doing it but you believe that you would notice if and when it is used against you, you have already failed; because it IS being used against you every day in every possible way.

If you could not be bothered or think yourself above (power) politics – you have already failed.
If you think I am exaggerating, you probably are failing right now.
If you think power corrupts, you will be right, but nevertheless be failing.

The single most effective thing you can do to advance your career is to become a student of POWER and influence – and that is a statement I don’t make lightly.

Secret to longevity

2007-07-08T18:49:00.000+10:00

Read an article by an ex-executive of Shell Corporation. It reports on material and significant findings of research project (http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/degeus.htm ) that was designed to establish which factors account for the survival of companies (for more than 500 years).

Read it - its fascinating. If you are in a hurry - here is a short summary of the findings:

1. Sensitivity to the environment represents a company's ability to learn and adapt.

2. Cohesion and identity, it is now clear, are aspects of a company's innate ability to build a community and a persona for itself.

3. Tolerance and its corollary, decentralization, are both symptoms of a company's awareness of ecology: its ability to build constructive relationships with other entities, within and out-side itself.

4. Conservative financing is a very critical corporate attribute: the ability to govern its own growth and evolution effectively.

As usual the research raises further questions, but more about that at another time. I would summarise the findings as follows:
* Adaptable (point 1 + 3)
* Clarity Purpose/Vision (no 2)
* Smart resourcing. (no 4)

How basic is that? And why can't more companies do it?

There is an inherent tension in having a clear purpose and being sensitive/ adaptable at the same time. My very simplistic take is that the very delicate balance is thrown out by greed/ corporate politics: when the people become more important than the purpose.

Manage conflict 1-2-3

2007-07-03T18:34:00.000+10:00

Managing conflict

Had an opportunity to do some coaching today. Now it is not my natural/ day job, but I quite enjoyed the experience. The topic du jour was as per this blog title.

Later I saw a vlog (http://blogs.bnet.com/intercom/?p=434) on office politics, which referred to the fact that managers spend 42% of their time on this activity (managing conflict) – but no reference to how to actually do it. So here goes the d price methodology:

The pre-requisites are:

1. Is it my conflict to solve?

If you are fighting someone else’s battle, you are bound to lose it. Don’t go into bat for someone else in the office. You may think you are helping, but you are trespassing.

2. Take a positive view of the conflict. Don’t see it as a negative/battle, see it as an opportunity to clear the air and to rectify misconceptions or clarify an issue. You may well be wrong so you might just learn something. It will also help reduce the tension - before you start.

Then stepping into the actual situation:

STEP 1.

Consider the context. (The pre-requisites are arguably part of this step?) But the priority is to assess the situation. Is it worth fighting over? Who am I fighting? What is the time of the day? (Are we going to run out of time when we reach a crucial point?) Who else is present? Who has the power position in the room?

STEP 2.

The actual discussion. The key thing is here to use “I” a lot. It may be counter-intuitive, but always be clear that you are speaking on behalf of yourself, it is your opinion and your feelings. Instead of: You don’t understand, it should be “I think you misunderstand me”. You get the picture I think… (Or should that be I think you get the picture...:-)

STEP 3

Clarify the outcome. Write it down if you have to. Don’t settle for “we’ll both be nice to each other in the future”, but aim for “I will greet you by name every morning.” Like all objectives, the outcomes should be S.M.A.R.T. Don't settle for less or else it will just resurface later.

As it easy as 1-2-3. Never fear when Dennis is near…:-)

BMW (South Africa). Defining innovation.

2007-07-01T14:37:00.001+10:00

Innovation as Brand Value

Brand Me

2007-06-28T08:34:00.000+10:00

We are presenting on "Brand Me" up on the Gold Coast next week, and is my wont, I have been doing some research. I came across a blog The Buzz Machine (click on the link above) - which does not have anything to do with branding per se, but made a very interesting observation.

I quote from the blog:
For young people, writes [Dov] Seidman, this means understanding that your reputation in life is going to get set in stone so much earlier. More and more of what you say or do or write will end up as a digital fingerprint that never gets erased. Our generation got to screw up and none of those screw-ups appeared on our first job résumés, which we got to write. For this generation, much of what they say, do or write will be preserved online forever. Before employers even read their résumés, they’ll Google them.

If you are a parent, this is pretty important to communicate to your children.

Now along with the talk about condoms, drugs and not getting into strangers' cars, you also have to warn them about the implications of Facebook, Myspace et al. My guess is that they will laugh it off because the 'threat' is vague and non-specific and will probably be attributed to us being old fashioned.

I will speak to Lauraine tonight - and let you know :-)

Innovation vs. Survival

2007-06-27T08:36:00.000+10:00

Which is the preferred result?
Tom Peters (http://www.tompeters.com/archives.php?date=200706) reckons it is innovation that rocks the world. I agree that it rocks, but he trades it off against the notion of 'Built to Last' - another seminal publication.
I disagree with the master: Survival (lasting a long time) is the ultimate testament to ongoing ingenuity and innovation on a scale that might not rock the world but it sure beats the alternative. I am happy to settle for lasting a long time as opposed to rocking a short time. The one takes smarts and the other ... could possibly just be LUCK.

In defense of management jargon

2007-06-25T07:27:00.000+10:00

Core competency? Benchmark? Key issues? Sustainability?

Ask any manager and they will explain what these words mean. To the uninitiated it is buzzwords. To the literati, it is a modern day plight that will destroy the English language.

X wrote The Death of Language. Y wrote. Weaselwords. Hundreds and hundreds of pages devoted to slagging management-speak. Courses on Effective Business Writing will advise strongly against using technical jargon or made-up words. These courses, of course are always run by literary types, never business people an managers. (We are way too illiterate.)

Funny that. And invariably they will also tell us that of the 800,000 ordinary (non-technical words) in the Oxford English Dictionary, the average person only uses about 8,000: that is one percent of the available words. The implication of course, ‘we’ know many more. It is then followed by a joke that you should not use ‘pulchritude’ when the word ‘beautiful’ would do. Ha ha.

Their strategy? Encourage the business managers to use simple language, lest some of the key issues become obfuscated. That is, stop using management speak. No more outcome engineering or value-add solutions. No more xx or yy.

I wonder where these people were when the engineers coined terms nano-second and voltage. Or when the scientists stopped calling it a ‘rotten-egg gas’ and called it sulphur dioxide. Surely the computer geeks should never have been allowed to make up stupid words like spam or megabytes, not too mention asynchronous messaging hypertext.

The despicable jargon is simply the art of management becoming the science of management. And we need a new language. These weasel words are simply the evolution of the language being adapted to new concepts and stretched in a fast-changing world us managers face daily.

Sure, not all of us have mastered the ability to turn a deft phrase. I guess there are a few plumbers and surgeons out there who suffers from the same malady. (Oops, sorry, I meant disease.) Sometimes our sentences are clunky because we are not great writers. The vocabulary is hardly to blame.

Never too old...

2007-06-20T19:48:00.000+10:00

As part of the research that I am doing on a book that I am writing, I get to interview some really successful entrepreneurs. Today I conducted an interview at which I actually got a perspective on a very old concept - delegation - that I had never thought of. (Those of you who know me well, will know how rarely that happens :-))

We spoke about that hoary old notion of working IN the business vs. working ON the business. We shared a contrarian view - but he basically saw it as delegation. Then he raised the idea that when you (owner/manager) delegate a task, you are giving away a problem, but the person to whom you are delegating receives trust and respect and stature. WOW! Think about that next time...

Change this

2007-06-16T10:49:00.000+10:00

This is a first for me- I am just going to promote another website. The quotes below are from a manifesto called "The Hughtrain" - a play on the original Cluetrain.

Quote 1: Why did I leave the big world of corporations and Amex cards...

The big city is an anachronism. All those skyscrapers, architecturally impressive as they are, were built to house large, tightly controlled, centralized bureaucracies within a very small area of land, geographically near the other like-minded bureaucracies with whom they did business. You wanted to work for Corporation X? You had to buy a house within commuting distance to Corporation X’s Central HQ. Ninety percent of the people you needed to talk to on a daily basis were within an elevator ride of your desk. Amazing how dated something so recent can seem. Now e-mail and its spawn are the new elevators.

Quote 2: Why did you start a Blog - one of those things that when you are in start-up mode, is important but not urgent.

HOW TO HAVE SMARTER CONVERSATIONS.

1. Understand why what you’re offering to do for other people, is interesting, important, meaningful, etc. Then start telling people about it.

Think about this one. Hard. If you don’t know, then how will other people know? Exactly.

They won’t.

2. Live like you know the difference between remarkable and unremarkable, like it matters to you.

The more “remarkable” matters to you, the more likely that it will appear in the product you’re selling. The more likely other people will notice it.

3. Seek out the exceptional minds.

This is my basic mantra. It’s a good one to have. Not everybody gets it. Their loss.

4. Start a blog.

Blogs are funny things. Say something smart and people pay attention. Say something dumb, and you’re ignored. We big media folk just can’t seem to get our heads around that concept, for some reason. Regular blogging can help train you to discern between smart and dumb. It makes it easier to extend this to the rest of one’s business

5. Ruthlessly avoid working for companies that “don’t get it.”

Yeah, you may have to turn down a few gigs, and that can really hurt when the rent is due. Still, anything that’s easy to get isn’t worth having.

6. Ruthlessly avoid working for companies that think they know better than you.

Luckily, if you get the whole “smarter conversations” thing, their “Yes, buts” will just seem rather empty, making them easier to “toss out like old furniture.”

7. Be nice.

Smarter conversations are fueled by goodwill. Lose it and die.

8. Be honest.

Again, smarter conversations are fueled by goodwill, etc.

9. Karma is key.

But you already know that. Or you’re stupid. No middle ground on this one, sorry.

10. Listen.

Tongues are dumber than brains, brains are dumber than ears, etc.

If a CEO can see his company as primarily an idea amplifier, then he can understand his “brand” properly. Vision doesn’t require molecules, it never did. What it requires is something worth believing in.

Retaining Talent

2007-06-15T18:52:00.000+10:00

Read an article the other day (somewhere) that the war for talent is hotting up (again?). It makes sense in Australia where unemployment is just on 4% - a 30-year low.

Being a newly minted entrepreneur – in Aus at least – I wonder about that. How and where will I find good people? People who will care as much as I do about my customers? I care because I know very personally that they are the people who allow me to eat and look after my family. Can any employee care as much? As soon as you are an employee, the person who feeds you is the boss – one step removed from the customer, and employees will always act accordingly: please the boss before the customer – that is only human.

Even when I consider myself as an (ex-) employee, I must be honest and say… ‘I guess not!’ As much as I considered myself to be a valuable employee (no comments required on this one, thanks) I still did not care as much as I care now. And it is only when you are the owner of your own business that you get that first hand experience of what customer service is all about.

So, my contrarian advice to large companies who are struggling to hang on to talent is this: FIRE THEM!

That’s right: let them go out there and stretch their legs and start a business that is funded by the corporate and let them build a business where they are the top dog. If they are truly talented, the corporation would soon have a pretty nice investment/ subsidiary. If not, they weren’t that talented anyway. (And you can hire them back with a good dose of humility and gratitude.)

Toxic workplaces

2007-06-15T18:40:00.000+10:00

I have had cause recently to contemplate what constitutes a toxic workplace – and in particular which factor is the biggest driver of creating such a workplace. There are many obvious contenders, but I’ll reference the front runners only:

Highly politicised

Politics (of the corporate kind) is often seen to be and made to be ‘bad’, but I think that it is a very good mechanism for keeping people on their toes and equipping them with the communications and observational skills necessary to progress in the corporate world. Being able to play the game is a skill needed when you are the CEO/ Chairman/ MD and you operate in a sphere where everything is the proverbial grey. What better training ground than middle management?

Bureaucratic

Also much despised is the overly bureaucratic environment, but again it should be - for any half-decent manager – a relative cinch to operate freely in that environment. Learning which rules to break and where to go in order to get things done actually improves inventiveness.

Unsupportive

People who complain about unsupportive workplaces have a very new-age attitude to work. It is not always meant to be fun – that is why it is called work. If you want a work-life balance, work less and play more and suffer the consequences. The complainers are always those who want to work less but feel they can’t because someone else will get a Guernsey over them if they are not putting in the hard yards. They are right – and so it should be. (if it was your business, how would you treat employees?)

Little people

So the winner for me is the (toxic) workplace ruled by little people. It is always about them – not the business outcome. They are the ones who employee people who fear them and/or can be controlled, which pretty quickly creates a critical mass of fearfully obstructive employees. These are the ones who are excellent at managing upwards (= euphemism for ….???) and their favourite phase is: “ just keep me in the loop.”

Earning a living

2007-06-14T17:43:00.000+10:00

Drove my son to the football training yesterday. As we passed a bus, he asked me whether they earned a lot of money.
"About $20 per hour", I ventured. He was impressed. (He is 9.) I then proceeded to tell him that it wasn't that much - not with a mortgage and such. Then came the million dollar question: "How much did you make today?"
The truthful answer was ... "nothing". He did not seem to really get that tomorrow or next week I might make$10k or $20k, which makes up for the all the 'nothing' days.
"I am never going to go into business," he ventured. "I am going to be a sport star or an actor or a musician or something like that."
I might not have made any money yesterday, or even the day before; but I got to drive my son to the football, AND sit and watch him play. Priceless - as they say in the ads. The joys of being an entrepreneur. (No footy pic on this computer...)

Create a New Marketing Theory in 5 Seconds

2007-06-12T16:33:00.000+10:00

As an entrepreneur/ consultant/ author, you are always interested in finding a new angle to write about. As a free tool, I have created a marketing buzz-generator – for all to use…

Pick-and-Mix one word from each of these tables, combine…. and off you go:

Integrated	Brand	System
Connected	Market(ing)	Solution
Authentic	Customer	Theory
Sustainable	Consumer	Framework
Collaborative	Value	Platform
Dynamic	Communications	Proposition
Strategic	Community	Outcome(s)

(Just don’t expect me to buy the book L )

The last word on Marketing

2007-06-10T14:48:00.000+10:00

The last word about Marketing

I am one of those people you see in the bookshops, browsing through magazines and books. (The kind of people that annoy even me.) There are a number of reasons why I do this, and it isn’t about money. I find ‘topical’ magazines to offer very little value, but like an addict I keep going back to look. There are several magazines on marketing (and every now and then even a runaway best seller) that propagate a new buzzword and makes amazing claims about a wonderful insight the author has.

(I actually created a table that allows you to create your own NEW theory in 5 seconds flat – more about in the next blog.)

I thought about the discipline of marketing quite long and hard, because quite frankly, I am struggling to see how marketing (as it is practiced today) will retain its relevance over a long period.

I have come up with these 7 immutable laws of Marketing. The Contrarian 1-2-3 of Marketing:

1 Law of Process

CONSISTENCY

2 Laws of Product/Offer

FILL A NEED (Have a perceived utility)
PRICE/VALUE/QUALITY MUST BE PERCEIVED TO BE BALANCED

3 Laws of Brand

BE DIFFERENT
BE AUTHENTIC
CONNECT EMOTIONALLY

Would love to hear from anyone who can add something to this list.

(Simply adding an adjective/adverb does not count, so I am not interested in fast/ focussed/ innovative etc.)

The truth about time management

2007-06-06T17:54:00.000+10:00

Of all the tings I don’t get in this world, this particular (myth) confounds more than most. What is time? And can you really ‘manage’ it? Of course time cannot be managed. It cannot even be properly understood.

We perceive it to be and record it as a linear experience that somehow passes us by with supreme consistency. It is how we measure everything, even our lives; yet the great philosophers and the great scientists still grapple with the concept. We all labour under serious fallacies when it comes to the concept of time, but when a Manager pronounces that a certain individual cannot manage ‘time’ we nod sagely and thankfully – glad that it is not us.

Nobody can manage time. Some people might struggle to prioritise – but in the absence of some great Ultimate Truth that definitively determines that one task is more important than another – not many people can point a finger at those who get it wrong. Others simply work more slowly, but that is no sin either.

When you are tagged with this ‘problem’, it is the kiss of death. Because it does not exist, it is incurable!

Many would argue that modern man is time poor. How is that possible when time is infinite? How is it possible if time is constant? There has never been more of it and there never has been less of it. It does not cease when we die. Time does not fly. Time cannot be planned, lead, organised or controlled – hence it cannot be managed. Time is the ONE thing you can stake your life on that does not discriminate and that every single person in the world will be treated the same by ‘Father’ time.

There is nothing any person can do to change one aspect or characteristic of time; but that does not prevent a manager from accusing a subordinate that he or she has poor time management skills. But the fact of the matter is that in the modern society we are not time poor. We are option rich. We don’t have less time; we just have more options that we may or could exercise in the amount of available time. But it does not sound good to say we are option rich because that implies it is something that may be treated very simply. Ignore some options or refuse to exercise them. Simple.

The truth about trust

2007-06-03T18:42:00.000+10:00

Too often I am asked about how one goes about building trust or winning someone’s trust. I then proceed to give advice, but to be perfectly truthful; I find it hard to trust anybody outside of my very immediate circle. Nobody knows you and nobody owes you. Andy Grove was famous for his paranoia about the competition – even when Intel had ridiculous market shares of 80%.

You have always been a little suspicious. Maybe you have even known it, but were too afraid to admit to yourself. That little voice inside your head has become a chorus that you can no longer ignore. Management is played by a set of rules that you are not always privy too. Have you wondered why you don’t get ahead faster, why you don’t get the plum projects or why the new guy seemed to fit in better than you did? You have a sneaky suspicion that some other guy – or gal – who is doing the same job, earns more money than you do.

You may have sought some answers from your manager. Or you may have blamed your inexperience or your gender. You may have some very good friends who share your thoughts and opinions but somehow you still hope you are wrong. I can unfortunately only confirm your fears. That other guy is going to get the leg up. He or she will be promoted even if they don’t really do a better job than you, and even if you have served more time.

Your friends will whinge with you and bemoan the unfairness of the system. You are all wrong and you deserve to be losers. There is an old adage that ‘life is what happens to you while you are making other plans[1]’. And corporate life can be like that too. While you are working, beavering away to deliver on the goals you have been set, other people get promoted around you in seemingly mindless fashion. Before you know it, you are fat, fifty and forgotten.

A coach will not choose weak players for the team just because they deserve an opportunity. The corporate world is not grade school. This is LIFE. It does not owe you a living. People are not kind. People don’t look out for you. We are not working towards a common goal. Resources are not there to share. Realising it is a human jungle is a good start to being able to survive. Flowers are not colourful and pretty because the world is a beautiful place – they are pretty because they need to attract insects that can distribute their pollen across the paddock.

Beware passion – ‘tis a very unreasonable emotion. Beware beauty. Beware kindness. Beware advice freely given. I am not just making this up to be interesting. The Stoics believed that the virtuous life is free of all passions, which are intrinsically disturbing and harmful to the soul. I am not suggesting man = machine; this approach does not preclude appropriate emotive responses conditioned by rational understanding. But I am suggesting that you don’t believe the self-help books or the sitcoms or even the psychiatrist. If a counsellor or psychiatrist (or any type of consultant) was really that good and they could ‘fix’ you, they would be doing themselves out of a job. Why would any sane person do that? I also bet you the people that will be telling you I am wrong are those very same consultants. Surprise, surprise.

I am not suggesting that you can’t stop and smell the roses. Just beware the thorns! I am advocating a healthy dose of cynicism. The famous cynic, Antisthenes says, "I would rather go mad than experience pleasure." The archetypal cynics were the beggars who had questionable personal hygiene, but even cynicism has moved beyond its roots. You don’t have to forego all pleasures to have a healthy level of cynicism.

The modern cynic is a street-smart operator who does not act overtly cynically simply because they don’t want to give away a great advantage. (If people treat you as being naive when you are not, is a powerful position to be in.) Modern cynics think things through; they expect that people are selfish and that their motives are not transparent. They believe it is better to be pleasantly surprised when someone does something good without ulterior motive; rather than be caught off-guard when someone breaks a position of trust. The latter case invariably has dire consequences whereas a pleasant surprise is of no real consequence other than fleeting appreciation.

Wariness will let you stay alive longer. Caution is the first step in the survival process. Without a strong sense of doubt you will fail to question motives. If you don’t understand the motives, you can’t understand the processes and you will not be able to anticipate the outcomes. If you can’t anticipate the outcomes, you cannot be prepared. If you are not prepared, you will end up as corporate road kill. Cynics know the real rules of the road.

[1] John Lennon is commonly thought to have said it first. No original source. Hope you don’t mind John.

Happy Birthday

2007-06-03T18:40:00.000+10:00

Happy Birthday to Moonyeen.
Blessed with a glorious day & some great friends for company, it was a great celebration today of the miracle that is Moonyeen, born 44 years ago!

The Deception of Detail

2007-05-31T18:27:00.000+10:00

People usually take pride in saying that they are ‘not good with the detail’ but they really ‘get the big picture’. The uninitiated managers suffer from the misguided belief that it is somehow admirable to admit to being a ‘big picture’ thinker. They believe of course that the big picture is more conceptual, more strategic and more important. The Brotherhood of Management knows better.

There are only a handful of people in any organisation who need to get the big picture – and you are almost certainly not one of them. Brothers should never admit to being better at the detail than the conceptual, for it is necessary that not all workers pay attention to the detail. It suits the Brotherhood if workers are concerned with the big picture items because it is in the detail where we can lay the landmines that trip up the unsuspecting.

Nothing could be further from the truth that you should not sweat the small stuff. It is all about the small stuff. The devil is truly in the detail and if you study the big success and failures of people’s careers, it is always because they somehow got the detail right. Some may have simply been lucky, but for the majority – the millions and millions – the hundreds of millions managers out there are paid to sweat the small stuff.

A contract is made invalid because of one small omission, a plant grinds to a halt because a small screw got loose and a computer program does not work because there might be one line of code out of several million that is an error. In a negotiation room it is the contraction of a pupil that signals defeat. Attention to detail is about being particular – in the literal sense of the word.

The world, and all the businesses therein tick on detail. That is the nature of a system. Wheels within wheels. And every manager has a little patch to mind and it is his or her job to take care of the detail. It is boring and it does not sound terribly strategic or glamorous; so we will indulge by saying you must be able to see the big picture – and obviously it does not hurt – but that only applies while you still manage the detail. If you get your priorities wrong, you do so at your own peril.

Don’t believe your own hype and don’t get fooled by the false promise of a job that sounds strategic. Pay attention to the detail; that is what will trip you up. If things go wrong with the big picture, there will be plenty of factors outside of your control that you can blame; but if you make a mistake with the detail you only have yourself to blame. This may account for the reason why people are loath to concern themselves with the detail. But admission to the Brotherhood, and its rewards, only come to those who are prepared to take the responsibility for the detail.

Cycle of Success

2007-05-31T08:46:00.000+10:00

Belief generates attitude.

Attitude generates emotions

Emotions generates performance.

Performance generates results

Results reinforce belief,

completing the cycle

Success attitudes: chicken and egg

2007-05-24T17:37:00.001+10:00

There are so many books, blogs, speakers and gurus that emphasise a few ‘mantras, millions of titles, the same old story:

Believe in yourself
Follow your hear and your passion and success will follow (i.e. don’t do if for the money)
Stay true to yourself/Stay true to your brand
Stay focussed/ Be disciplined
You must have a unique selling proposition/ a niche
Have a goal/ set your objectives (and write it down and read them every day)

Over the coming weeks I want to debunk some of these myths/ beliefs, but for today, all I want ask is whether all these people could possibly be right, or whether these observations are simply obvious and logical (very hard for the guru followers to argue with) and that we started to believe these things through sheer repetition, rather than because of any veracity.

Myth: Believe in yourself

2007-05-22T19:48:00.000+10:00

It would be disingenuous of me to state that I am (want to) debunk this as a myth, because I am not going to completely go the opposite way and say that you should NOT believe in yourself. But I would like to put it into perspective.

Self-doubt is a good thing. Roger Federer continues to play tournament after tournament and cherishes every win exactly because he has a little of doubt as to whether he will succeed. If he had no doubt, he would stop playing because there was no joy in winning and no challenge to conquer. It is exactly because there is a risk of losing that people go out and play. No sane adult will go to Little Athletics meetings and race against the toddlers. If it was only about the importance of winning, that is what we could do. But winning is made desirable and special exactly because it is about overcoming the fear of losing and conquering the self-doubt.

If you find yourself in a state of complete and utter confidence (and you are being truthful) then you are not pushing yourself to grow. Every person needs some resistance to grow stronger, just like we need some bacteria to build up an immune system; and self-doubt is that resistance, that barrier that we need to break through. And it is or should be a constant process.

As soon as you arrive at a state of supreme self-confidence, you should realise that you have stagnated in your comfort zone.

De-bunking the Secret

2007-05-20T13:34:00.001+10:00

The Secret continues to gain traction. For every disciple there seems to be a dozen detractors. The basic response of the unbelievers is simply a ‘rational’ reaction that scoffs at the notion of people being luck magnets. Being able to attract abundance through sheer will is just too close to ‘magic’ to be realistic. There are many very credible naysayers, but there are equally powerful proponents of ‘the secret’. Who to believe?

Like any good sect, that adopts the best bits from traditional religion but leaves out the inconvenient bits, the secret does the same with reality.

It is true that we are simply manifestations of energy. But the truth is also that opposites attract (in the real world of positive and negative poles of magnets). By spinning ourselves into a ‘positive’ state of expectation, we will sure attract the opposite if science is anything to go by?

It is true that people are by and large responsible for their own miserably lives, but the truth is also that control of our own lives only apply (to the extent required by the secret at least) in very affluent societies where there are limitless opportunities. What holds good in the US of A does not necessarily hold for Rwanda or Iraq.

It is true that we are all ONE in the universe, but every system is in a balanced state that requires equal amounts of positive and negative energy to remain stable. There is good and evil and there will always be. The only state in which pure good may exists is possibly heaven, but here in the world we live protons and electrons. Good can only be recognised because of the contrast of the concept of evil. Happiness is only happiness by contrast to the state of sadness.

The message if the secret (note the lack of capitals) is positive and can, on the face of it, do no harm and is so successful because the time is right. But, trust me World; those teachers are charlatans selling snake oil to the vulnerable.

Meet the Queen

2007-05-13T12:57:00.000+10:00

If you did not live in Australia, you would probably not realise but the Queens of England is still the titular Head of State of Australia. (The debate about becoming a Republic ebbs and flows.)

For the record, I must state that nothing would give me greater pleasure than looking the Queen in the eye, and saying “G’day Betty, how are you doing?”

I’d probably be breaking some law I imagine, but there is no way that I will bow before another man (or woman).

People and dogs

2007-05-09T19:53:00.001+10:00

When my wife and I tale the morning walk, we are invariably accompanied by Georgie, our little pavement-special of a dog. Her reaction to passing dogs is interesting:

- Sometimes a mutually respectful sniff

- Sometimes happy to ignore the dog blissfully

- And sometimes she gets ropable and wants to attack

There is no pattern – presumably they smell something, but whatever the reason, the reaction is varied and instantaneous. Made me thing of BLINK (Malcolm Gladwell’s book) and wonder if people are like that too? Maybe we just disguise it a bit better?

The obstacles to success

2007-05-05T16:29:00.000+10:00

There are many obstacles to achieving success. Failure is the default position, I think. (Several 100 million sperm, one baby. Etcetera.)

So what are the obstacles? Let me not count the ways… there still many blogs to come, but I’ll just focus on one: CYNICISM.

Cynicism is such an easy, ‘adult’ excuse. It masquerades as word-weary experience, so it is very handy to pull out. And because success is more exceptional than it should be, the cynics are often right. But to be successful, you need an almost child-like naiveté:

To remain positive in the face adversity, to persist against the odds – all these things require a suspension of ‘reality’ that’s seems very self-evident to the cynic. There are always more reasons to give up than there are to keep going so to be cynical is more realistic and possibly even more rational.

Cynicism also provides the rationale after you quit – making it the easy option; justifiable under the circumstances. And because the circumstances are always stacked against success, quitting seems so reasonable.

Cynicism allows you take pot shots at those struggling up hill while you sit under the tree, enjoying the shade of the quitting tree. ‘As if…’ you say, watching the struggle, and even if someone is successful, you still have the power of statistics behind you… what are the odds anyway that you’d succeed?

Patterns of Life

2007-04-30T20:15:00.000+10:00

I remember when I first noticed the existence of patterns. Everywhere I looked, I discovered patterns. I did not immediately realise it, but I had discovered the concept of chaos theory. Initially, for a number of years, I never bothered to understand its principles, assuming that it was all about chaos – and I had a preconceived notion that the answer cannot lie in chaos, because that would mean randomness rules. That would have meant luck was the Master of the Universe, and I did not want to face that. Fortunately, I could not have been any more wrong.

Habits are patterns. Personalities are habituated behavioural patterns. Culture is patterns of behaviour and norms. Mathematics is all about formulae that describe specific patterns or rules. So is Biology. Every imaginable phenomenon that you can see or experience has an underlying rule or formula that determines the phenomenon or behaviour. All psychological ailments are simply defective patterning, and all counselling is an attempt to re-pattern. Ditto the athlete and the coach. The graduate on the fast-track and the drunk on the park bench. The geese flying in formation, the flock of seagulls fighting over a french fry. The peak hour traffic, the milling of a crowd at the sports stadium. The shape of snow flake, the coastline. The serial killer. The cereal floating in a bowl of milk. Patterns everywhere you’d care to look and a billion places you wouldn’t.

The purpose of business

2007-04-28T18:14:00.000+10:00

"The purpose of a company is to create a customer. ... The only profit center is the customer. ...The business has two – and only two – basic functions: marketing and innovation. Marketing and innovation produce results: all the rest are costs." (Peter Drucker:)

Four sources for all solutions

2007-04-26T15:13:00.000+10:00

In order of importance, these are the four ideas or constructs that I have discovered over time, and that I consider indispensable. If I never study another self-help book or management text again, I will be able to fashion a solution to the most intractable problems form these four sources:

· The Word of God

Don’t worry, I am not a religious nut, and the insights and content contained in this book are not particularly concerned with the Bible. As a book it is well-known enough, so there isn’t anything I can add to make it more understandable. I won’t seek to justify its philosophies or accuracy. For what it is worth, I simply cannot accept that I am nothing more than a glorified fish walking on my hind legs. ‘Tis crude, but it is really as simple as that.

· Chaos Theory

More and more books are beginning to appear on this topic, and the only reason why it is not yet widely embraced by the public is because the language and constructs are often somewhat obtuse – written by scientists. That is slowly changing, because everybody has heard the quote about the butterfly flapping its wings…

· System Thinking

Thank God for Stafford Beer and the School of Cybernetics. Trust me when I say that a ‘system’ is not a machine, and the concept is worthy of your study.

· The 7-S Framework (Peters & Waterman)

In Search of Excellence was the book that kicked of the cycle (or should I say explosion?) of text books on the topics of interested to management and leadership. Suffice to say that I have been able to retro-fit most seemingly original ideas into that framework. (Tom seems to have become a bit of a crusader, now pronouncing aphorisms as the next big insight, but his life work is probably done.)

Knowing when to quit

2007-04-24T17:43:00.000+10:00

I promised upfront not to blog unless there was something to say - so I had a quiet week. Until I read http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/04/the_big_dip_ten.html - Guy Kawasaki's blog.

I have contrarian views - most of the time, but usually agree with Guy on almost everything. Until now. In my view, the essential question (when do you quit?) is a very important one. It is hard to distinguish the difference between focus & discipline, and being smart enough to adapt and change or innovate.

The difference between success and failure are tallied in the decisions you have made. Only with hindsight do you know if a decision was right or wrong - and that is why so many people believe in 'luck'. Sometimes 'sticking to a decision' gets the right outcome - much like a broken clock is 100% right at least twice a day. Sometimes you have to 'desert a sinking ship' or 'stop throwing good money after bad'.

In this case, the question has been answered by a statement that begets even more questions: When you have suffered enough? When is the pain the greatest and how do you know that pain won't get more (or less) soonish? Seth is fishing at the shallow end of the 'achievement' pool... and we are none the wiser. I believe there is an answer, but it ain't Seth's little aphorisms.

Under pressure

2007-04-19T20:09:00.000+10:00

For reasons that are best left unexplained, I was watching The Biggest Loser on TV ( reality show about weight loss) tonight. The series is nearing the end with only 4 contestants remaining. All the talk is about how important the next elimination is and one contestants articulates what a pressure situation it is.
It simply amazes me how people 'create' pressure simply because of irrational thinking processes. And it is not only average Joes on reality TV. You have the tennis player that is talking about the semi-finals, the crunch match, the most important day because if (s)he can win that match - (s)he will be in the finals. And the media, the managers the sponsors all get into the act, so you can't just say it is a dumb sports person.
[As aside, my other little pet hate is commentators who always bemoan the fact that some team always makes a mistake on the last ball; e.g.: the 'the winger never gets the ball because the team seems to be dropping the ball on the last pass'. Duh. That is why it is called the last pass.]
Anyhow, in any competitive situation (sports or business) the ultimate or penultimate challenge is no different to the first challenge: If you lost in the first round you also don't get to go to the finals and win the trophy. If you lose in the final you also don't win the trophy. The first round match and the semi-final match are equal in impact as both result in the same thing.
The result is no different but we create more stress for ourselves because we artificially attach more importance to those results that are closest to the ultimate prize even though the effect of all matches are exactly the same.
Sticking with the tennis analogy, I must admit that some players have a healthy attitude: faced with a tough draw (say that have to play the No 1 seed in the first round) some players have been known to say (correctly) that 'if I want to win the tournament, I have to beat this guy, so it does not really matter when I play him.'
Why we create this pressure when we are in the moment, escapes me because it is not as if anyone can remember who came second at anything; so in the long run second is really no different to fourth or tenth.

The ugliness of truth - pt 2

2007-04-18T17:33:00.000+10:00

I should just clarify:
I do not believe that lying is the way to go. I don't practice or advocate lying. I am referring to things like:

Thanks, what a lovely meal... when it was pretty average
Getting up for someone older (on the bus) but doing it with a little bit of resentment towards someone younger than you who did not get up - but not causing a scene
Blessing a sneeze - but not meaning it

These are simple social graces that infills the yawning gaps in the ugliness of beauty- without which we cannot function; because truth is just too ugly.

The ugliness of truth

2007-04-17T18:19:00.000+10:00

I have been an ardent follower of the dogma of truth. In my younger days I even hurt people close to me , and justified my behaviour because it was the 'truth'. Sadly I have not completely shaken the habit. And I say so not because I want to be admired for a very attractive weakness (like the interviewee who identifies his weakness as 'failing to strike a world/life balance') but I honestly believe that the truth is over-rated.
The opposite of Truth is not willful deceit, but simply untruth; so I am not advocating deceit as the preferred communication platform. But untruths are highly misunderstood and under-appreciated. One variety - the white lie - is commonly used and understood, but we usually don't even contemplate the extent to which we rely on deceit.
Jim Carrey's move (Liar Liar) was reasonably funny, but I doubt that it led to the serious introspection or philosophical debate of the value of Truth that this particular phenomenon deserves.
In a world of imperfection and sin, truth can by definition not be beautiful because the truth is imperfection/ reality.
We need deception to cope with a horrible world: it is the make-up that beauty puts on before it leaves the house. Without a bit of deceit, none of us would have any friends.

God's answer

2007-04-15T13:14:00.000+10:00

A rhetorical question today: Do you also wonder (sometimes) if we are truly able to make our own life (successes and failures) or whether it has been pre-determined by God?

The age-old debate of predeterminism:
God must know everything - or else He is not omniscient.
If God knows everything, then my decision is already made.
Is life worth living if my success or failure is not as a result of my labour and initiative and creativity?

The answer lies in what the image to the right represents. It is an image of Pollock's paintings ("Convergence: Number 10, 1952" at The Albright-Knox Gallery). It is a fractal image. Just Google 'fractal pattern') and you will see tens of thousands examples.
Fractal image is an image of chaos. It illustrates one of the tenets chaos theory very clearly: At the level of the whole it appears chaotic; random swirls and lines. Look closer and you will see fine repeating patterns.

And Life is like that: For the individual in his or her own 'sworl' (swirl+ world = sworl, do you like it?) life appears to be pretty random. Shit happens. Sometimes it looks like thing go according to a plan, but then suddenly luck, fate or destiny seems to interfere and it is off on another tangent.

More people probably believe luck writes your success rather than choice. But the answer lies in the 'sworl' - there is pattern. The pattern is set by a very simple set of rules (see the 'Game of Life' reference in an earlier blog) - and life plays out in that pattern. When you are bouncing around in your sworl - making decisions that take you left, right, forward, sideways or wherever, that is all as a result of those decisions. God does not take that decision for you. But where your life bounces to as a result of that decision has been pre-determined.

On a micro level you have complete freedom to make the decisions and get suffer the consequences (good or bad). But ultimately the pattern of Life is written in the universal law of God.

The new-age gurus are very fond of claiming they have discovered 'the answer' and know the 'laws' which can be reduced to a 7-step program of course, or in teh case of The Secret, only 1 - but generally I am quite doubtful. But whether the answer is discovered or not is not material. Because chaos theory also dictates that 'everything is connected' and that the system is sensitive to initial conditions, it will be humanly impossible - EVER - to manage the system entirely in your favour. Shit still happens, because somewhere in your sworl, someone makes a decision that is their butterfly flapping its wings, but turns out to be the tornado in your backyard. To wit: the drunk who skipped the red traffic light...

And so life swirls on-and-on in patterns that people just can never fully understand.

A most peculiar thing…

2007-04-12T18:55:00.000+10:00

I am referring to the mind --- and how it works.

It is really no different to any other body part in its basic composition (molecules à atoms à protons, neutrons and electrons) yet it is the seat of all our angst and all our joy.

The one thing in particular, of the many things that boggles my little mind, is its inability to react to reprimand and to negative stimuli. It is almost as if it doesn’t have a ‘reverse’ gear. I notice it particularly in other people and not always in myself. (Too close to home?)

Whenever you say to someone:

‘Don’t drop the glass’ – it invariably gets dropped.
‘Be careful not to fall over’ – results in falling over.
‘Don’t hit the ball in the net’ – sees the ball hitting the net.

Start the day by spilling coffee on your tie, and you berate yourself and warn yourself that this is going to be ‘one of those days’ – and tell me I am wrong, but it usually turns out to be one of those days!

If you think Quantum Physics is the beginning of understanding the way the Universe functions (as I do) then you will also appreciate that Chaos Theory is predicated on the understanding that the universe is one: everything is connected. (No Deepak Chopra, no new-age crap – pure science).

You may not have thought it about this way, but that means that your thoughts… are connected to the glass that was dropped! WOW. (This thought should percolate a while...)

The mind does not process the ‘negative’ qualifier - don’t – it simply understands ‘drop the glass'.

I have no idea why… and I can’t find any research (what is the matter with Google?) to back this up. Maybe you know?

Who are you?

2007-04-11T20:44:00.000+10:00

Margaret Wheatley asked this question: Who are you?
http://www.margaretwheatley.com/articles/eightfearlessquestions.html

The question is not new - in fact it is probably the original question (or maybe even the primordial) question. But her take on the response is interesting: Your answer should be 'big' enough to hold your life.

Do you define yourself as a cancer survivor? A father? A marketer? Are any of these answers 'big' enough to hold your whole life?

Suddenly we start needing multiple lables - and maybe that is a cop out? What is the 'lable' that will define who you really are?

And here is my little insight: Those who can define who they are most clearly and soonest, are the ones who become who they think they are best, and hence are the most successful? It is the philosophical equivalent of a USP or a brand proposition, or maybe even the sales equivalent of your 30 sec elevator pitch.

You don't only need it - but you need to live it. That is when the belief will manifest itself in your life.

Who are you?

The game of Life

2007-04-09T18:23:00.000+10:00

As most people do, I wonder about God, the Universe, Religion, Life after Death and little old me. Mostly it boggles the mind. But tonight I checked out one of my favourite 'games' - and then suddenly the answer is clear again. You can play it too...

http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html

Think about it - and let me know your thoughts

Running scared

2007-04-08T20:07:00.000+10:00

I read an article on the net that has me (mentally) running for the hills. Check it out: http://www.collegejournal.com/aidadmissions/newstrends/20050425-kronholz.html

In essence it highlights the lengths that college-hopefuls are going to in order to secure a place at the better tertiary institutions. There is evidence that Australia is already heading that way; to wit: the fierce battle for selective school places, the after-hours tutoring colleges, and the private school enrollment boom.

Simply put, people are putting their lives on hold to get access to what is perceived to be a better education. People are spending a fortune and accelerating the learning curve to secure a foothold in the ‘good’ schools.

The most obvious question is of course: does it really work? There are a dozen things wrong with this hyper-competitive approach, but if it works, none of those arguments will stack. The answer is so obvious that it boggles the mind: There is absolutely zero correlation between high achievement at school or college with success (however you want to measure it) and happiness (however you want to measure that).

Whilst a poor/ dysfunctional environment is obviously of serious detriment in many ways (no role models, lack of opportunities, inferior networking, lack of nutrition etc), an average schooling environment might not be the terrible things the wannabes think it is.

These parents (and their kids) remind of the soccer mums faithfully carting the brood from ballet to soccer to debating under the pretense that they want to ensure a well-rounded education, when they are secretly on a comparison merry-go-round. They never forgot that Johnny next door walked before their Sally. They forget that it actually takes a bit of talent to succeed at anything – along with a host of other things. But most importantly they forget that all they needed to do is play with the kid themselves – instead of outsourcing it to a third party.

It is pretty sad to see so many people so deluded, so blinded by ambition that they think happiness is a function of what you do when it is really about who you are.

I am not naive enough to believe that Sally Special going to Fancy School is not going to result in her making great contacts. Who you know is great leg up in the rat race, just as it is in every other aspect of life. Who you mix with will determine who you become.

Personally, I’d rather have a beer with Johnny and talk about the football then converse with Sally about her trip to India to build a house for the poor because demonstrating a social conscience was a prerequisite to get into college – even if you don’t give a shit.

So if there is no evidence that it works, why do people do it? For the same reason they’ll pay $500 for a pair of tsubi jeans... and because it is easier than the alternative.

Fame and other nasty things

2007-04-04T20:00:00.000+10:00

I run a ‘words of wisdom ticker’ on www.ganador.com.au – and one of my favourites is: Fame is the cancer of personality. It really is. Here is just one way in which fame eats away at the essence of the person, and it relates to the number of sportspeople who are currently (in Aus at least) under a drug cloud.

Suddenly the public is expected to ‘allow some privacy’ for the poor souls to deal with the very stressful time in their lives. There is some sympathy from misguided commentators. The media – bless their souls – generally don’t relent because they understand the equation:

Fame is a coin with two sides. Heads: to be known and admired by all, to be cheered from sidelines and the couches. The free meals and the good seats. The pretty girls and the A-list parties. Tails: to be followed by paparazzi when you are checking into rehab, the idiot that wants to fight when you are trying to have quiet night with a few mates. The pressure and the scrutiny. It is all part of the fame game. You cannot have the sponsorships and the perks without the scrutiny and the pressure.

If you’ve had enough ‘Mr Star’, you might like to drop out of sight, but guess what? It isn’t your decision. When you chose to chase the public adulation, you chose a lifetime (or however long we decide) of pressure and scrutiny. If you feel the pressure, that is your problem. We (the people) don’t feel it. We are just interested. And don’t – puhleaase – try and sell us that old story that you ‘just wanted to play footy’.

When you chose ‘fame’ it eats away at your perspective, your self-awareness. You start to believe that you deserve many other things. You believe that you are special in many other ways – and not only blessed with a nice bundle of fast-twitch fibres. You think you are in control of things that you are not. And especially, you are not in control of what people think about you – even if you thought they admired you. Fame is the coin of heads and tails; and like money, it corrupts mightily.

Your request for privacy is denied.

Eternal happiness

2007-04-02T19:41:00.000+10:00

In this little piece I can guarantee you complete happiness for long as you live. Follow one piece of advice and you will experience complete and total happiness – I promise. But let’s begin at the beginning:

There is an age-old question: when is enough, enough?

The glib answer is ‘never’.

Or even glibber: ‘when it bleeds’.

Or something like that. But jokes aside, how good are we at detecting when enough is enough? On a physical level it is pretty easy. Most people would have pain receptors to guide them through that one.

On an emotional level it is probably harder, but still not too difficult. People generally are self-aware enough to know when they are happy or sad – and also when they are making someone happy or sad.

On psychological level it is another story altogether:

We are told from a very young age that we can be whatever and whoever we want to be. We are led to believe that we are free to do as we please. We are brainwashed into believing having fun is all that matters. The mantra of the new-age parent is ‘whatever makes you happy’. Media promises the world to anyone who’d care to listen and has enough brains to believe them (but enough to question.)

Happiness is being beautiful. Success is another car or bigger TV. Life is achievement. Winners take all, but fortunately everyone can be winner.

The sad, sad truth is that, as a human race, we have been suckered into believing all of that stuff, and it is the worst possible thing you could believe. You see all of life is believed to be progression: a beginning, middle and an end. We have a linear view of life. We tell stories in the same way. Marketing is all about telling those stories. It all about growth, about acquisition. Getting more. Being more. It is an ingrained belief that tomorrow is different.

But in fact, life is a circle: from dust to dust. The secret to happiness is not in the journey, not in the evolution, not in the discovery of something unknown over the next horizon. If you want to be truly peaceful and happy, here is the secret: Accept your situation.

Tomorrow is any different. You may be different; your circumstances may be different. But the future is no different to the past. And most importantly, your first day and your last day are pretty much exactly the same in that minute before you were born and the minute after you passed away.

There are powerful cultural and economic forces working against you, so I must grant that ‘acceptance’ is easier said than done. The prevailing view is that acceptance is standing still: the loser’s way. Those without guts and ambition accept what they’ve got.

But acceptance is simply believing that what you have is abundance. Enough is enough. Everyone knows the stats: If you have $10 in your pocket you have more than 90% of the world population (or something like that). How many people can you squeeze into that top 10% anyway? If you had no one to compare yourself to, would you still want more? If you were stranded on an island with all of your current possessions, but cut off from any human ‘benchmark’ of human possessions, would you still want more?

The answer is of course, that you only want more because you know there is more available. Or even worse, because other people have more. Think about that and weep.

Forget climate change. A real attitude change will do billion times more to make the world a better place: If we all learn to say: enough is enough. You will have an inner peace that will astound you and happiness that surpasses al understanding.

(I’ll start tomorrow. Just after I bought the new Sony Bravia flat screen.)

If not confidence, what is it then?

2007-03-29T13:55:00.000+10:00

Confidence almost invariably leads complacency to over-confidence which leads to’ arseholeness’. There must be rare occasions when this progression does not naturally occur, but I can’t think of an example. There is a truism that’s states: Confidence breeds confidence. That IS the nature of confidence. So, by definition, confidence always ‘grows’ – and inevitably people don’t know when to stop.

I am sure some self-help gurus will argue that you can never have too much confidence. (I’d say, think ice-cream.) Some gurus will say that the problem is rarely once of too much confidence and that the bigger issue is growing confidence. To this I say: maybe so, but only if you understand the need to manage the confidence growth – and knowing when to stop. THAT is never taught – and that is my issue.

I don’t believe lack of confidence is the opposite of confidence. I am not advocating being unsure. What the world desperately needs, is more humility. Old-fashioned and contrary to the culture of ME it is, but if we could double the humility and halve the over-confidence the world would be a much better place.

I haven’t read the book yet, but Tom Peters (on his blog) spruiked a book on ‘Hostmanship’ – and sounds just like the kind of thing I am talking about. A good dose of humility will take care of all those customer service issues you face in your business and a bit of servant leadership (you know, the Christ model) will take care of all those ethical and governance issues that is the scourge of the modern corporation.

Confidence causes failure

2007-03-27T20:22:00.000+10:00

Is confidence really all it is cracked up to be? It may be counter-intuitive (hey I am contrarian) but confidence may be counter-productive.

When you are confident you are less aware of your situation, your environment and the people around because you simply don’t need to be. In the first instance that makes you extremely vulnerable to delusions of grandeur which turns you into an instant arsehole. (Which might not matter to you, because you are Mr Big) but it matters to the people who buy from you, it matters to the people who want network with you. Granted, arseholeness does not follow confidence automatically, but too often it does. (Ask Trump…) The difference between confidence and over-confidence is only a wink away.

Confidence makes you vulnerable to your enemies because you simply cannot physically remain alert to danger signals if you are focused on yourself and ‘being confident’. Confidence requires a high level of self-awareness (and some may say self-absorption), and the price you pay is reduced awareness of others. The truism of ‘pride before the fall’ has become a cliché for its very pervasiveness. True achievement can only come with total focus on the goals, the environment, and the process. Andy Grove (ex-Intel) captured it neatly with his emphasis on paranoia. Confidence and paranoia just aren’t great bedfellows.

Everybody has weaknesses and shortcomings. If you are an achievement-orientated person, you are constantly focused on self-improvement. Confidence too easily migrates to complacency. To achieve success, you need and emotion that has energy: survival is typically driven by ‘flight’ or ‘fight’ – both emotional and physical states are high-energy states.

There is a world of difference between being confident and appearing confident. Actual confidence is a rare commodity anyway: even the best sports people get really nervous (to the point of vomiting) before a match. Is that the sign of confidence?

It’s much better to practice appearing confident, than actually believing yourself. Everyone has weaknesses – including you. Everyone agrees you can’t trust other people. Just remember that you are one of those other people too. You will fail. You will screw up. Confidence simply speeds up the process. Objectivity is hard enough to achieve, and by definition you can not be objective about yourself. If you are confident, then you simply are over-estimating your abilities.

Doubt and fear are healthy: emotions that keep you alive and focused. Confidence makes you soft and vulnerable. Some people believe confidence is the more desirable state of mind because it (supposedly) feels good. That is true if you allow yourself to make the connection between confidence and happiness. But the one does not have to lead to the other. Similarly a worrier does not automatically have to be unhappy. A pinch of worry is a good thing. An ounce of self-doubt might just save your life – and make you a nicer person too.

Insights to PMA - Pt2

2007-03-26T21:01:00.000+10:00

Festinger sums it up as follows: “According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustress

Did you get that? When attitudes and behaviours collide, the winner is almost always…. BEHAVIOUR. Not attitude! Not even a positive mental attitude.

The importance of this observation cannot be under-estimated. If there is any discordance between your attitude (positive) and your behaviour (negative) then your ATTITUDE will change to match. This means your attitude changes to match your behaviour.

When the kids were younger and they still laughed at my antics, I used to play a little game with them. We would take turns to force ourselves to laugh. We’d push out a groan from the pit of our bellies, through our throats and just force ourselves to go through the motions to laugh – which invariably resulted in hysterics; real laughter because of the silliness of the pretend laughter. (Try it some time.) It is a good illustration of how behaviour ‘leads’ emotion.

But even if you are doing the stuff that supports your PMA, there are MORE obstacles that stand in your way before you could possibly claim success.

1. You must know what to do. (Take the right action)

2. And then actually do it.

3. And keep doing it.

4. And hope like hell there aren’t any uncontrollable events that will prevent your from achieving what you set out to achieve.

Let’s tackle these one by one. (I know it looks obvious, but there is actually more to it.)

Insights into positive mental attitude (PMA) – part 1

2007-03-24T20:34:00.000+11:00

Having bagged the notion of PMA in generalised way, I probably should be a bit more specific about my gripes. There are some benefits to be gained from PMA, but this does not exonerate those who have jumped on the positive thinking bandwagon. In fact I hope it reinforces the notion that the gospel of the positive attitude, as preached by the gurus who are enamoured by their own egos, is stupid and wrong – even dangerous to your mental health.

Being be the parent of high-achieving children (budding sports stars, I have been exposed to my fair share of PMA, goal setting gurus – believe me. And I can promise you some of the shit they teach can have a devastating effect on people.

PMA can play a role in people becoming more successful - if success is defined as the achievement of set goals. (That is a whole new debate: What is your definition of success?). But the human mind is like a finely balanced machine – you don’t want any hack mechanic to work on it – and almost definitely not anyone that you can buy for $29.95. There is no way that unique set of wires between your ears can be tuned with a generic set of ‘rules’ by anyone with a website and a few speaking engagements under the belt.

PMA should be viewed within the framework of cognitive dissonance theory (CDT). Have you ever made a major purchase (house/ car) and then suddenly felt overwhelmed with fear that it was the wrong decision? This is called post-purchase cognitive dissonance. On the flip-side, have you noticed that, when you are in the market for new tyres for your car, you suddenly seem to notice a plethora of ads for car tyres? And if this theory is applied to the notion of goal setting, you will see a possible benefit – which at least partially explains why it is so easy to believe the PMA myth.

It is not a big stretch to appreciate that, if you have an attitude adjustment, you will now become aware of the ‘positives’ in your environment. Just like you became aware of the car tyre advertisements, you will become aware of the opportunities that support your earlier decision. CDT postulates that people, “after making a decision, favoured the alternatives which they had selected more strongly” (Brehm, 1956). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

In essence this means that, in order to not look like fools, people start looking for corroborating evidence to justify their decision and, now being attuned to seeking out certain signals that will support their thinking and filter out those that contradict the decision.

Jung's definition of attitude is a "readiness of the psyche to act or react in a certain way" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attitude_(psychology). If you have a certain ‘attitude’ you have basically programmed your psyche to react in a certain way. If you have programmed a Positive Mental Attitude, then you r mind will be ready to act in that way. You will certainly start noticing things in your environment that tend to reinforce that belief. By the same token, Christians like myself will see the Hand of God in things, because it concords with our beliefs. And racists will simply just see the bad things the ‘other race’ do, and be blind to the very same behaviours in their own race.

But it is a long, long way between simply noticing other (supporting) positives in the environment and actually achieving success. There is a major risk that often gets overlooked by the gurus who want to simplify things and give a shortcut to success.

Technorati Profile

Mentoring pt 2

2007-03-24T19:37:00.001+11:00

Mentees probably join a mentoring program for an array of reasons, and some of which are likely to doom the relationship. The first thing I will do with my mentee is to establish clearly and honestly why she joined the program. There is list of things I won’t be doing, and the top of the list looks like this:

Telling her what to do.
Doing stuff for her.
Leverage my network.

It may seem odd that I won’t be dishing out advice, but I happen to be a firm believer in the Socratic method of teaching. I will ask the questions that will lead her to arrive at an answer. If I am any good, it will be the answer I think is right.

I won’t do stuff – I have enough to do. I have a business – a family – a life. I am not doing it for charitable purposes. I can’t charge for my services. Despite the fact that this expectation is dealt with upfront, I am pretty sure the reason why the organisers have to keep dealing with an the introduction evening is because it keeps popping up.

I won’t leverage my network directly, but I will (hopefully) teach her to leverage hers. My network is there for me to help (not the other way around) and the mentee may become part of the network after the mentoring relationship is over.

State Election 07

2007-03-23T19:03:00.000+11:00

Tomorrow is my first time voting as a citizen of Australia.

1. I think the Greens will have a massive gain - surprising everyone - and not for the reason everybody thinks (climate change).

2. Is Australia a democracy if voting is compulsory?

Mentoring: the good, the bad, the ugly

2007-03-22T17:48:00.000+11:00

I started on the journey of joining a local initiative to act as a mentor. Being a pedant, the first thing that struck me was the use of mentor and mentoree (sic) as the labels. I am proud to say that I refrained from correcting it on the spot, and now having checked the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mentee) I was tempted to let them know of the error of their ways. I am proud to say I resisted. Mum will be proud: I am growing up.... very slowly.

To be honest (as that is what this blog is all about) if I was the organiser, I would want to be corrected rather than make a fool of myself. On the other hand it may be an “in” joke or peculiarly Australian.

Being in the training/learning business, I suppose the act of mentoring is simply a different kind of training. But for most people, even very experienced business people, would no doubt fall into the trap of becoming de facto consultants.

This whole process will require time I can ill afford, and I would not have done if I did not expect to learn something from it – and learn something that I could use in our business. I can’t say for sure, but my guess is that most mentors would get as much out of the deal as the mentees – if not more. There is lot of ego involved in helping people, more so than simply being a Good Samaritan. Another reason might be simply filling in time: once again a guess, but I reckon a good one, is that the hours between meals are awfully long when you hit retirement and you are healthy, smart and used to having people listen to you.

Make no mistake: this is not knocking mentors (I can’t knock myself) – it is a useful, constructive process and these mentors are generous to a fault. I am simply suggesting that mentees don’t have to feel guilty for taking something out of the relationship, because we get something out of it as well.

Next time… what does the Mentee get?

Perspective on Pain

2007-03-20T18:09:00.000+11:00

Having grown up and lived in South Africa we are/were , possibly more than other nations, exposed to pain and suffering. Few us do not know a family who has not lost a loved one through rape or hijacking, or even just through the carnage on the road during festive seasons. The pain of such violent and seemingly unnecessary suffering is probably more severe than ‘normal’ pain. The Reach for a dream Foundation strives to alleviate the immeasurably sadness of children being terminally ill, apparently with some success. It always amazes and saddens me to see a skinny, bald-headed 7-year old exhilarated by a ride in a hot-air balloon; or a little deformed girl ecstatic about an opportunity to sit in the cab of a steam locomotive or the cockpit of a jet. The absolute, unmitigated, joy is so apparent, and they are so blissfully unaware of the profound sense of tragedy that permeates that scene.

The late John Denver, well known for his soppy Country & Western ballads, phrased it beautifully when he sang: Some days are diamonds and some days are stone… It is also true of our own lives. Some days are good and some days not; and nobody, but nobody can escape sadness, death and pain. The pervasiveness of drugs is symptomatic of man’s attempted flight from pain and misery. But it is inescapable, inevitable, and as the cliché goes, you can run but you can’t hide.

Another famous balladeer (John Lennon) once implored the world to Imagine…a world without war, world without famine and without pain, just everlasting peace. Well can you imagine?

A world without pain is world without joy, world without suffering can not know happiness. You can not experience the happiness of life and living without the counterpoint of death and dying. Without darkness there can be no light, without fear there is no relief. Beauty is only beauty when contrasted with ugliness. The yin and yang of life is happiness and pain. You cannot feel passion if the fires of hate have never burned in you. A life without pain would be like living in a monastery - a mere mockery of real life. There is no pleasure, nothing to conquer other than utter boredom. Would you want to trade a life filled with love and hate, fear and joy, happiness and sadness; for a life that has no thrill, just everlasting harmony, no beauty, no ups and no downs, just a smooth straight road lying ahead of you, where you can know for sure that tomorrow is the same as today, and as yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that…

It is obviously easy to philosophize about pain as an abstract necessity, when you don’t have a loved one lying on a hospital bed, dying; or a wife recovering from a rape; but it does not invalidate this particular reality. Theoretically retrenchment is a good thing because it forces you to become an entrepreneur and will bring out the best in you; until it is your turn to a get the pink slip. The fact is, irrespective of how you feel at a particular point of your life when faced with extreme sadness, the juxtaposition of sadness and happiness is an immutable truth that cannot be altered. Further proof of this reality plays itself out in front of our eyes everyday. When people become rich and famous, they can more or less insulate themselves from most everyday sufferings. Their wealth becomes a fairly effective shield against the common miseries of the common man. But by being less exposed to pain, they have to seek continuously more outrageous thrills to make them happy. Their sense of joy and wonder becomes dulled because it is not sharpened by life’s tragedies. They explore evermore dangerous thrills, including artificial stimulants, just to re-capture that sense of being truly alive. Almost invariably they bemoan the fact ‘money cannot buy happiness’. Well, they are wrong, as any poor person will quickly point out to you that money can indeed buy happiness. The problem is, one of the intended consequences of money is that it shields you from the miseries of normal life, or subconsciously people possibly equate the absence of misery and unhappiness as being the same as being happy, when in truth it is not even remotely so.

Few people manage to break free of the shackles of their upbringing which inculcates in all of us that success is measured by something tangible, when in truth, it is a state of mind. And you are wise when you realise that you cannot be happy all the time, so that even in sadness, somewhere deep down you are merely biding your time when life will bestow happiness on you again.

Network: Is it still bullshit if there is a tacit understanding…?

2007-03-19T16:04:00.000+11:00

Attended a session today on networking skills.

I wanted to test whether my understanding of networking was the same as most other people. So it is only fair to say what I believe:

Networking is not about selling.
Networking is not about building your profile.
Networking is not about gathering as many leads as possible.

IMHO, networking should be about giving as much as you can. You attend these functions to meet other people – and try and help them as much as you reasonably can – if not at that moment, down the track. (Assuming of course they are worthy of your referral.) I believe the more you give, the more you will get in return. But here is the catch: you can not do so with the expectation of getting it back. (There is fine line between knowing you will get something back and expecting it.]

To be fair to the presenter and this particular model, it was pretty close. Selling and lead-gathering was suitably de-emphasized. The whole approach was one of the least cynical I have come across.

But the mere fact that people are trained not to sell to their immediate network, but rather to seek referrals with those 1, 2, or 3 steps removed, and the fact that you are trained to do so only once there is a certain level of trust, does not justify the active seeking of referrals.

There is no problem asking for a referral from anyone. Being in sales myself, I fully appreciate the value of a warm lead.

I only have a problem with people attending functions and socialising with specific people with the express purpose of ‘building a relationship’ to be exploited at a future date. A relationship that is built on this foundation can never be an authentic or meaningful relationship.

Is networking acceptable if both parties willingly and knowingly enter into the ‘relationship’ based on its network value? I suppose that it is – but then it is a tacit commercial agreement; just don’t call it a relationship. Relationships have intrinsic value, and are not built on the basis of its potential commercial gain – albeit a few degrees removed. That does not make it any better – it just disguised it better and makes it more palatable. (A donkey dropping coated in sugar is still a donkey dropping, don’t try and pass it off as a fig.)

So let’s stop the bullshit. Ask for a lead if you have to or want to. But don’t pretend to care about a relationship which exists expressly for your personal gain.

Success- that elusive thing

2007-03-18T15:20:00.000+11:00

Success – that elusive thing

A new (ish) book out now by Carol Dweck (Mindset: The New Psychology of Success) has now postulated a new theory about success. Surprise, surprise, the ‘positive mental attitude’ (Dale Carnegie + million others) is apparently not sufficient. It really depends, according to Dr. Dweck, on whether your mindset is fixed or whether it is a growth mindset.

She contends that a fixed mindset is actually negative, because, even if you believe you are talented or that you are a star, that this mindset limits your growth and achievement. On the other hand, a ‘growth’ mindset allows you to learn, grow and improve.

Dweck discovered that mastery-oriented children are very keen on learning something and they effectively have “learning goals” - which inspire a different chain of thoughts and behaviours than “performance goals.”

[Private thought 1: Soon, everyone will agree with my thoughts, which were originally quite contrarianJ.

Private thought 2: My other half constantly chides me that when I am ‘different’ all the time, I end up being predictably different, which isn’t all that different.]

I generally use the term ‘process’ goals and ‘output’ goals to distinguish between types of goals. One can possibly argue that process goals are not really goals, but let’s side aside semantics for the moment.

Dweck’s findings are a spin on ‘attribution theory’ if you are that way inclined. In simple terms, success and failure is determined (or least influenced) by the excuses you come up with when confronted with your own success or failure. (You know how some people believe success is explained by other people’s lucky, but their own talents?)

I said it before, but it is worth repeating: A positive attitude only makes opportunities glow in the dark. True success comes from actually tackling those opportunities, not from having any specific attitude. To be successful, you only need a 51% strike rate.

Busting the myth about being time poor

2007-03-15T21:42:00.000+11:00

This will be a real short one. (I am cheating with 2 posts today) and then none for a few days as I go away to celebrate my wedding anniversary (22 years) and the reason why it lasted this long is because I know well enough what will happen if I even try to get to a computer this weekend...

Anyway, being time poor:
Firstly, and most obviously, the amount of time can never ever vary. The way we measure it, the way we perceive it, means 24/7 is the amount that we have and it is the same for everybody. Get that people? It is the same for everybody, and it is the same every single day. Rich or poor, young or old; no matter how you 'feel' about it does not change the number of hours in the day available to you.

(Actually, there is no 'secondly'.)

People are not and can never be time poor. The only thing that has happened is that we have become option rich: we have soooo many things we can do, choices to exercise, brands buy, places to go, that we feel a bit stressed. Some smart-ass came up with a lable for the obvious and got it wrong, and now we all believe it.

Now it wouldn't matter so much if it was just a 'manner of speaking', but I worry about how my clients respond in the wrong way, because the problems is framed in terms of people having too little time, and they come up with corresponding solutions - except that it is the wrong problem!

The solution is not increasing speed of service (for example) but simplifying choice. Say you are a fast food operator: The wrong approach is to have a comprehensive menu and then trying increase speed of service. The right approach would be to make your menu simpler and take the time saved by the customer having to ponder their options, and use it to prepare a better quality meal. (Waiting time is the same, the customer feel less stressed and it is a better quality meal.)

I am not saying slow everything down and I am not saying anyone in the world wants to waste their time waiting in a line. I am simply saying the trade off required is not what most people think it is.

Next time someone says 'time poor', give them a gentle slap around the ears, and politely correct them: it is option rich...

The truth merchant

2007-03-15T21:24:00.000+11:00

Blogging is as hard as I thought: When it is time to pack up and go to bed... the duty of the blog calls. It is particularly hard when nobody reads the blog - as I have only told 3 people and I have done zero linking/marketing/ etc. But I would like to have a bit of content before directing visitors to the site.

The problem is that I have been indecisive about how I wanted to position the blog. What would make it different enough to attract a few visitors, yet mainstream enough to be relevant to a significant market? Then there is the challenge of having content worth blogging about, but not going off the edge and when business associates and clients read it, think I am as mad as a hatter. (And of course doing all of that whilst remaining truthful and not pretending...)

Today I decided what my particular soapbox was going to be, and it is ... bullshitting. There is so much of it around (i.e. a huge market) and I think cutting through the crap, being ruthless about the truth and being honestly confronting is 'on brand' for our business- www.ganador.com.au - and probably worth reading.

The piece about goal setting (previous blog) is exactly the kind management and business myth I'd like to debunk. There is a long list waiting..
- Charisma
- Achievement
- Selling
- Recruitment
- PR
and so on and so on. (I would love to get a comment or email about your favourite myths)

The next one is about being time poor...

Bullshit Goals

2007-03-14T20:22:00.000+11:00

Read today... for the gazillionth time (MyBusiness , Mar 07, Australia) that apparently the key to success and the one thing all high achievers do without fail, is to "write down your goals" and then to keep reading them for 30 days and it will happen.
I reckon somebody said it once, and every person who wrote a self-help book or article subsequently, quoted it or repeated it and somehow it has become this irrefutable, magical, meta-truth that only losers will dare refute. Question to those gurus: Can someone, anyone, actually quote some research that proves that this is so?

The act of writing the goal down has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the achievement of that goal. You can wear your lucky underpants all you like, but it ain't gonna make your footy team win.

There is a psychological phenomenon (e.g. post-purchase cognitive dissonance) that plays a role. Have you noticed how, once you have bought a new car, you suddenly notice how many of them are on the road? Or the opposite - when you need new tyres, you suddenly notice the ads which previously was just visual pollution?

Writing down your goals is little like that: As soon as you become aware or focussed on something, you will suddenly start realising and 'seeing' the opportunities to make the goal come true. When you take the opportunity, you have a much better chance of achieving the goal. The positive thinking brigade confuse the writing of the goal with the actions taken.

The real key to success or failure is whether you do something about the goal. It is the action you take, not the goal you dream. Writing a goal down is not the only way to become or remain focussed on the right processes. If your guru or your coach plays this particular card, chances are they learned to coach by reading a lot of the same books and are regurgitating what 'everyone else' is saying. (Fire them: you will be drinking from that well for a very long time and they are assured of an annuity income stream based on your perpetual unhappiness.)

Not all goals are achieved. There is no 'Secret'. Life is bitch and then you die. You do what you can with what you've got, and that is about it. I can prove to you mathematically that not everyone who wrote down their goals or visualised their dreams became rich and famous. (It is called average per capita income.) Some people are dealt a rotten hand and that is the way it is.
The only thing that I can agree with, with the positive thinking brigade, is that you should never give up.

I am not advocating pessimism. I am not giving you an excuse to cop out. The real key to success is to focus on 'processes', not the end-result. Have a bias for action. (Some even call it 'process goals' and that is ok with me.) Your "goal" should be to go for 2 aces in ever match, not to 'win' the match. Your challenge is to find the processes that will lead to the outcome you want.

Obsessive goal orientation will lead to perpetual unhappiness, because by definition you have to keep moving the goal posts: higher, further, richer or whatever. Find your joy in the moments of doing the things that make you a better person, that makes the world a better place or things you find some meaning in. Do the things that evoke your passion, and you have achieved success. If you don't agree, you need to re-define success...

Will history look kindly on George W Bush?

2007-03-13T17:20:00.000+11:00

I am no apologist for George W Bush. Don’t know the man, can’t say that I like him or dislike him. I don’t even know where I stand on the “war in Iraq” thing. But I did see his popularity plummet from record highs to record lows without changing anything. So it must have been the people who changed their opinions. That got me thinking whether history will judge George kindly, or are the opinionated masses right?

I am kinda leaning towards George…

When the country was crying out for someone to take charge, he did just that. He made a promise on the spot and showed real leadership in a moment of national (international!) crisis.
When that same country stopped loving and admiring him, he stuck to his guns. When he had the opportunity to do the popular thing and withdraw from Iraq, he did the unpopular thing and stuck to helping the people that suffered because of the war.
The war might not be over, but in the end the atrocity of war was less than the atrocity of the dictatorship and people were free, even if they weren’t safe. He did not count the cost of removing but a handful of evil people in dollars; and the world is better place for what he has done.
When the planes flew into the skyscrapers, he cried.
He got to be President, twice, even though a lot of smart people said he was not the sharpest tool in the shed.
He remained faithful to his values, his wife and his God, even though he was mocked for it. He did not do drugs or get pissed in public – which is a helluva lot more than some of us can say.
He could have gone it alone, but he did not. But when he was abandoned and isolated, he stuck to his alliance in good faith.
He remained focussed on the big picture threat of terrorism – even when it became an inconvenient truth.
He re-built the buildings and healed the scars with no regard to the money, but cared for only the pride of the nation.
He still laughed at himself, despite being under more pressure than most humans beings could possibly bear.

Now, he may dumb and the terrorism thing is not solved by a long shot (no pun intended). I am not sure he can be blamed for either. Whose to know whether he is simply obdurate, or whether he is committed to the cause. In the end, he did all that could be asked of any person: give it your best shot.

Start here

2007-03-12T19:18:00.000+11:00

Many people I know promise themselves that... 'one day I am going to start a business'... but then struggle to find the 'right' idea. Now I can't tell you exactly what the right idea for you is, but I can tell you where you can go and fish. I have identified 5 areas, and I am not considering any of the obvious miracle cures for diseases etc.

1. Look at a supply chain (preferably an industry that you know well) and identify areas of conflict/ friction in the supply chain.
2. Look at the people around you and identify what they are greedy and/or selfish about. (Even if it comes from Nigeria.)
3. Find a product or service that appeals to the vanity of human beings.
4. Anything that makes people safer in a new environment (internet/second life/school/ roads - whatever.)
5. Anything that makes someone think/ feel/ act younger than they really are (vanity combined with a fear of death is a particularly potent combination).

I could go on, but you get the idea. The really fun bit is to use this approach as your investment filter. (It kinda makes Google, EBay, Amazon, Second Life, Mcafee etc etc quite obvious...)

Which begs the question: why the hell am I not any richer?

Winners of the world

2007-03-11T16:15:00.000+11:00

Evolution dictates that one 'species' eventually emerges as the 'winner': the one that adapted the best I suppose. Does this notion also apply to more metaphysical concepts/ formats/ ideas in the world? Can't see why not, even if the real winner can't be known until the end of the world, but it is fun trying to think of what the winning bets in our time frame are. So here goes:
1. English.
1. China (although I think India is a dark horse).
1. Islam.
1. Capitalism.
1. An e-Virus.
1. A Virus (or possibly a bacterium).
1. Women.
1. Co-habitation.

Better late than never

2007-03-10T21:04:00.000+11:00

I promised myself that I will only start blogging when I have something relevant to say. Not everyday, but regularly enough. This is my tester... bear with me.