Filed under

Thought leadership

See all posts on posterous with this tag »

Happy Happy Happy

Screen_shot_2011-02-19_at_9


WHY AM I BOTHERING TO WRITE ABOUT HAPPINESS?

It's said that the English are only happy when the sun's out, England's winning, they have a pint in their hand or they're enjoying a good joke. The rest of the time they find something to moan about. Given my roots, I thought it would be a good idea to understand why there's been so much buzz about happiness recently, including being one of the most talked about courses at Harvard in recent history.



4476793705_ea61597ef0


WHAT'S HAPPINESS?

There are many interpretations of happiness but I like the one by Martin Seligman, the pioneer in positive psychology, who has broken it down into three components: Pleasure, Engagement and Meaning. According to Seligman, pleasure alone limits your experience of happiness. "Those who pursue all three routes lead the fullest lives."


Aristotle uses the term eudaimonia to capture the essence of happiness and this translates to a far more interesting encapsulation of happiness. Eudaimonia means 'human flourishing'. This links well with the theory that happiness is as Shawn Achor - a leading expert on the subject - states "the joy we feel striving after our potential".


What's interesting to me about this view and probably the driving philosophy behind positive psychology is that happiness is not seen by the recent subject matter experts as a momentary feeling but more an overall approach to life. As Jane McGonigal concludes in her chapter on Happiness Hacking in her book Reality is Broken   "It turns out that knowing what makes us happy isn't enough. We have to act on that knowledge, and not just once, but often." Or as the self proclaimed happiness explorer Elizabeth Gilbert says in Eat, Pray, Love, "Happiness is the consequence of personal effort... You have to participate relentlessly."


All this makes sense when you consider the concept of human flourishing in relation to those elements I mentioned above about the English relationship to happiness. Those momentary moments  of happiness clearly don't add up to a happy populace.


There's plenty of research out there to argue that happiness increases life expectancy and that happiness has the ability to open our minds, which results in greater achievement. In fact, it can be argued that happiness is probably the best coping mechanism for the crazy crazy world we live in today and the best antidote to the high levels of anxiety that people are experiencing. Check out these two major studies to understand the scientific claims I make above:


The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin - Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005)


Positive emotions in early life and longevity: Findings from the nun study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology - Danner, D., Snowdon, D., & Friesen, W. (2001)



Chess-championship


IT'S A STRATEGIC EFFORT

So let's go with this idea of an approach to life and see where it takes us.


Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi was a key instigator in the connection between happiness and activity. In 1975 he published a groundbreaking scientific study called Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. The focus of the study was a specific kind of happiness that he called Flow:  "the satisfying, exhilarating feeling of creative accomplishment and heightened functioning." He found in his research a lack of flow in everyday life but saw examples on where it existed in abundance in games like chess, basketball, rock climbing and partner dancing. All of these have a clear goal, well established rules for action, and the potential for increased difficulty and improvement over time. One of his key observations on where flow worked was when the pursuit was done for pure enjoyment rather than for status, money, or obligation.


Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi said in 2000 "We believe that a psychology of positive human functioning will arise that achieves a scientific understanding and effective interventions to build thriving in individuals, families, and communities." This could be argued as the leading statement that solidified the Positive Psychology movement. While Maslow was really the father of the idea behind positive psychology, these two guys really took it on and have driven the dialogue around the relationship between happiness and human potential since. But many voices have joined the discussion and I'll come on to the ramifications of that shortly. 



131647_charlie-sheen-attends-t


THE FORCES OF UN-HAPPY

Even with convincing research and a multitude of bona vide methods of achieving happiness, the world is less and less happy. The World Health Organization recently named depression the single most serious chronic threat to global health, beating out heart disease, asthma, and diabetes.   


One problem we have is that our brain on many levels is not working in our favor. Daniel Gilbert wrote an excellent book Stumbling on Happiness  that brought to our attention how our brain is developed in a unique way that enables us to imagine the future. This imagination in relation to happiness gets us in to trouble according to Gilbert "We fear that a tragedy will ruin our lives. We imagine that money, marriage, or travel will bring lasting satisfaction. For better or worse, we're making mountains out of molehills. Humans alone among animals can imagine the future and unfortunately, our imagination isn't especially accurate". What I took away from Gilbert's book is that we think too much about the future - we make predictions - without any context to how others have experienced what we're going to experience. The end result is that our predictions are woefully inaccurate: We predict that something's going to be amazing and it turns out to only be good; We predict a bad outcome that turns out not to be so bad but the damage is done by feeding our brain with epic negative events. Bottom line is if you are going to imagine what's going to happen, use other people's experience as a foundation to your prediction. Alternatively, as a multitude of self-help books will argue - be in the present.


But I also see some immediate challenges to our happiness that exist in our everyday lives.


Well in truth there are a million challenges to our happiness but taking a very unscientific approach to research, I chose to walk through Barnes & Noble yesterday.


The first reference I took was the new non-fiction section, which provided a good indication of the environment we live in. While book titles may not be a strong cultural barometer, they do tend to indicate themes. In the new non-fiction aisle there was an uncanny number of titles with the word fail or failure in the title. My initial feeling on this is that when you are surrounded by failure, it's damn hard to be happy. There's significant research out there that shows one negative person entering a team or even a large room of people can have an effect on everyone, so seeing and hearing failure as a cultural dimension right now is probably not helping us in our pursuit of happiness.


Another aspect directly related to my bookstore experience was the shocking number of books on the subject of Happiness. A search on Amazon shows close to 9,000 titles related to happiness in the Health, Mind & Body section alone and over 5,000 titles in the Religion & Spirituality section. I posted at the end of last year about how new scientific findings have shown that choice is a positive thing for people as long as the choice is limited to three items. After that, anxiety sets in. So we clearly have a problem here.


To conclude before I offer up some constructive solutions, it's hard to be happy today and like all the recent books published on the subject of the end of books, happiness is getting a lot of attention with publishers but this presents a paradox with the end goal in mind.



Photolibrary_rf_photo_of_man_d


SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GETTING TO HAPPINESS

Out of all the books I have dug in to on this subject - specifically helping to achieve happiness - Shawn Achor's seems the most constructive. Unfortunately, as stated by Sonja Lyubomirsky, author of The How of Happiness the subject of happiness struggles to come across as anything other than corny. She goes on to say "Why do many of the most powerful happiness activities sound so . . . . . . well, hokey?" So you are going to have to bare with me on this one. I could argue to you that this corniness is driven by your cynicism but that would be cruel to immediately reveal your own level of happiness.


Achor offers up seven principles of happiness. Each is covered in much depth with numerous references to scientific studies that prove out his observations and suggestions. Rather than bore you with this and make this post a mini book, I will leave you to understand that everything recommended is scientifically supported and should you desire a more in depth dive on each principle, you can buy Achor's book.



241_working-out-at-the-brain-g


Principle #1 The Happiness Advantage 

Positive brains have a biological advantage over brains that are neutral or negative. This principle teaches us how we can retrain our brains to capitalize on positivity and improve our productivity and performance.


The critical take away from this principle is that happiness is not just a mood - it's a work ethic. You have to work at getting your brain to experience happiness even if it's not there right in front of you.


Action steps

1. Meditate: Meditating actually leads to the growth of the left prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most responsible for feeling happy. Just 5 minutes of focusing on in/out breaths each day - no mind deviations or distractions during those 5 minutes - will lead to a happy brain.


2. Find something to look forward to: Endorphin levels rise just by thinking about something you are looking forward to doing. Put something in the calendar or as Sally and I do now, book your vacation way ahead of time because you can use that reference any time you need a boost of happiness.


3. Commit conscious acts of kindness: Giving to friends and strangers decreases stress and contributes to enhanced mental health. Choose a day of the week and commit to five acts of kindness on that day. It doesn't count to reflect on what you did but only works if you commit ahead of time.


4. Infuse positivity into your surroundings: Spending 20 minutes outside in good weather not only boosts positive mood but broadens thinking and improves working memory. Watching less TV is proven to aid happiness but watching less negative TV really helps.


5. Exercise: Those endorphins again but here I have to share an interesting piece of research on depression called Exercise Treatment for Major Depression, Psychosomatic Medicine, Babyak, M., Blumenthal, J., Herman, S., Khatri, P., Doraiswamy, P., Moore, K., Craighead, W., Baldewicz, T., & Krishman, K. (2000). This study started with three groups of depressed patients. One group was given anti-depressants. The second group exercised for 45 minutes three times a week and a third group did a combination of both. After three months, all three groups experienced similar improvements in happiness showing that exercise was just as helpful as anti-depressants. However, where this story gets really interesting is that 6 months later all three groups were tested for their relapse rates. Both the anti-depressant and the combined group had relapse levels exceeding 30% while the exercise only group showed just a 9% relapse rate. Exercise matters and it doesn't have to be everyday.


6. Spend money (but not on stuff): This reminds me of a conversation I had with P&G 18 months ago that led to a significant shift in how they talk about colds. There was also a great article in the NYTimes about a year ago that focused on a family in Miami who had switched their weekends from shopping in the mall to going out on a kayak, which the father bought on Craig's list for just over $200. The father's experiment worked with all family members concurring that life together had greatly improved away from shopping at the mall and instead just hanging out together on the kayak. Money spent on activities such as concerts, group dinners out, even a kayak that led to family outings at the weekend have proven to bring more pleasure than purchases on things like shoes, televisions or expensive watches. 


There's also another aspect to this which is "Prosocial Spending", where you spend money on other people. Spending on others makes you happier than spending on yourself. Just request my address, send me a gift and see how well it works.


7. Exercise a signature strength: There's a great and robust survey which has been developed by a team of psychologists, which you can do for free at www.viasurvey.org This will ultimately tell you after answering 240 questions, what your top 5 signature strengths are. Exercising your signature strengths will make you happier. My top one is Curiosity and Interest in the World, so I can admit here and now that the driving force behind my blog is to ask questions, find answers and then the sharing of those answers is the discipline (exercise) to make me fulfill one of my signature strengths. So in effect you are helping to make me happy. Find your signature strengths and start exercising them.


Csm107460


Principle #2 The Fulcrum and the Lever

How we experience the world, and our ability to succeed within it, constantly changes based on our mindset. This principle teaches us how we can adjust our mindset (fulcrum) in a way that gives us the power (lever) to be more fulfilled and successful.


Take the example of two janitors in a school. One sees his job as having to clean up mess every night; the other believes that he is contributing to a cleaner and healthier environment for the students. They both undertake the same tasks but the different mindsets dictate their work satisfaction, their sense of fulfillment and ultimately how well they do their job. This is what's meant by shifting the fulcrum. If you have to go into boring meetings every time, think of shifting how you approach the meeting. learning who presents well, who articulates an argument well, etc, and the meeting starts to take on a new role in your life. You have successfully shifted your mindset to a constructive place. 


Action Steps

Tal Ben-Shahar, author of Happier, argues that "Job Description" should be changed to "Calling Description". Think about the tasks you perform and write down the meaning that's derived from each task.


Achor offers up a good exercise here. Turn a piece of paper horizontally, and on the left hand side write down a task you have to perform at work that feels devoid of meaning. Then ask yourself: What is the purpose of this task? What will it accomplish? Draw an arrow to the right and write the answer down. If what you wrote still seems unimportant, ask yourself again: What does this result lead to? keep going until you have a sense of purpose in the task you have to perform. 


Chip Conley, the innovative hotelier, talks about how he gets his hotel employees to ask the following question "What would our customers call your job title if they described it by the impact you have on their lives?" This is a brilliant question and it would be interesting to ask clients in the marketing field to look at the disciplines of an advertising agency through this lens and vice versa.


The bottom line on this principle is that we know you can shift your prospects by believing in yourself and this often requires a shift in mindset to get there. You obviously have to be aware of the fact that your capabilities may not stretch as far as your beliefs - like putting on a superman cape doesn't mean you'll fly - but building your mindset around the belief that you can stretch beyond where your mind believes you should stop today is a good idea. 


Achor captures it well when he challenges us to stop thinking of the world as fixed when reality is, in truth, relative.


Tetris_apartments3_tetris_apar


Principle #3 The Tetris Effect

When our brains get stuck in a pattern that focuses on stress, negativity, and failure, we set ourselves up to fail. This principle trains the brain to spot patterns of possibility.


The Tetris reference is made because people who play Tetris for hours start to play it in what they see in the real world - seeing if buildings can be joined together. The point being that the brain can be trained to behave in new ways, so why not train it to be positive?


Often our tasks at work involve being rewarded for noticing the problems that need solving, the stresses that need managing, and the injustices that need righting, so our brains our currently trained towards negativity.


Action Steps

So now to retraining. Write down everyday, three good things that happened that day. That's it. That's all you have to do but consistency is the key so make it a ritual everyday. Put the pen and paper or simplenote app in your face everyday at a certain time and run with it. Research has proven this to be incredibly powerful and long lasting, even if after a month or so you drop off the habit.


To conclude on this principle, when our brains constantly scan for and focus on the positive, we profit from three of the most important tools available to us: happiness, gratitude, and optimism. With the task of writing down three good things that happen to you everyday, you become a hunter of positivity. The more you pick up on positive things, the better you'll feel = happy. The more we see positivity, the more grateful we become and finally, on optimism, the more you pick up on positivity, the more you will expect this trend to continue, and so the more optimistic you'll be.


Pt-gpsmap378rf-lg


Principle #4 Falling Up

In the midst of defeat, stress and crisis, our brains map different paths to help us cope. This principle is about leading us up out of failure or suffering.


On every map after crisis or adversity, there are three mental paths. One that keeps circling around where you currently are (i.e. the negative event creates no change; you end where you start). Another mental path leads you toward further negative consequences (i.e., you are far worse off after the negative event; this path is why you are afraid of conflict and challenge). And one, which we can call the third path, that leads us from failure or setback to a place where we are even stronger and more capable than before the fall. This is covered in my recent post on failure.


Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, captures the context of the third path well "We are not imprisoned by our circumstances, our setbacks, our history, our mistakes, or even staggering defeats along the way. We are freed by our choices." Or Tal Ben-Shahar's quote, which is brilliantly simple "Things don't necessarily happen for the best, but some people are able to make the best out of things that happen."


Action Steps

1. Change your counterfact: A counterfact is an alternative scenario our brains create to help us evaluate and make sense of what happened. Here's a scenario that you are asked to react to. You're in a bank that's being robbed and the robber fires one shot and you get hit in the arm. What do you think after the event? Do you question 'why did I get shot rather than anyone else in the bank?' Or do you think yourself lucky that you were only hit in the arm? Or even more beautiful a response would be 'thank goodness I was the only one who got shot and it was only in the arm'? Okay, that last option maybe pushing it a little too far but what's important here is that your mind is being asked to invent a counterfact. Your mind can choose two paths - towards the negative or towards the positive.


There's more to this than simply an outlook. Research has shown that by choosing the positive counterfact, we are set up for a whole host of benefits to motivation and performance while choosing a counterfact that makes us more fearful of the adversity actually makes it loom larger than it really is. 


Looking at future scenarios, imagine how they will play out with a focus on the positive and while in a situation or having just been in a situation, try to assess it from the positive perspective.


2. Change your explanatory style: Explaining a past event using a pessimistic style, i.e., it's really bad, and it's never going to change versus an optimistic style, i.e., It's not that bad, and it will get better, makes a huge difference in how the deliverer and the recipient of the message will behave. The former sinks us in to helplessness and basically stops us trying while the latter spurs us on to higher performance.


3. Learn your ABCDs: The ABCDs - Adversity, Belief, Consequences and Disputation - offer a method of optimistic explanatory style.


Adversity is the event we cannot change; it is what it is. Belief is our reaction to the event; why we thought it happened and what we think it means for the future. Consequence is a reading of our perspective of the outcome. If the reading is optimistic this means we are in a good place; while if the reading is pessimistic, it means we have one further filter to apply - Disputation. This is where we remind ourselves that our belief is simply that a belief, not fact. We then challenge - even pretending this challenge is coming from someone else in our head, so it's like we are arguing with someone else. This process helps us evaluate the reality of the situation and helps us move the result to a more optimistic place or if the adversity is truly bad, it helps us decatastrophize - give it time to get a sense of the true proportions of the situation.


4264650171_07d0d6bba7


Principle #5 The Zorro Circle

When challenges loom and we get overwhelmed, our rational brains can get hijacked by emotions. This principle teaches us how to regain control by focusing first on small, manageable goals, then gradually expanding our circle to achieve bigger and bigger ones.


Fighting within a small circle - Don Diego tells his protege "This circle will be your world. Your whole life. Until I tell you otherwise, there is nothing outside of it." Zorro was simply Alejandro until he mastered the first circle. After that the circle got wider and the achievements greater.


One of the biggest drivers of success is the belief that our behavior matters; that we have control over our future. But as workloads mount and we get overwhelmed, feelings of control are often the first things to go; especially when we tackle too many things at once. By concentrating our efforts on small manageable goals - a la Zorro - we regain the feeling of control, which is crucial to performance and ultimately happiness. As Achor brilliantly captures "By first limiting the scope of our efforts, then watching those efforts have the intended effect, we accumulate the resources, knowledge, and confidence to expand the circle, gradually conquering a larger and larger area."


Action Steps

Write down all the stresses, daily challenges and goals then separate them into two categories: things that you have control over and things you don't. You then focus on those things you can control and work to make those manageable assignments. Once you start to achieve these, you expand your reach and eventually solve much more, resulting in you feeling a greater sense of control and confidence.


In this principle Achor offers some interesting insights on how control can be believed rather than real and what psychologists call the 'Internal locus of control' Vs external - those who believe their actions have a direct effect on their outcomes versus those who believe everything that happens to them is controlled by external forces. He also talks about the reactions to situations and the emotional system versus the rational cognitive system. Put simply, the older part of your brain is driven to react rather than think - fight or flight - and the newer part of the brain is more of a thinker, so guides you to think and then react. Stress results in our brains falling back to the older part as if we are back in the cave and under attack by some vicious animal. All very interesting stuff but way too much to cover here.


5150659-old-padlock-on-a-woode


Principle #6 The 20-Second Rule

Sustaining lasting change often feels impossible because our willpower is limited. And when willpower fails, we fall back on our old habits and succumb to the path of least resistance. This principle shows how, by making small energy adjustments, we can reroute the path of least resistance.


I love this principle if for no other reason than it's just so simple but brilliant in its effect.


Here's the deal, if you make those things you want to achieve easy to engage with, you will persevere and if you make those things you want to stop doing, just a little bit more awkward, those bad habits will go away. 


Action Steps

You know how difficult it is to get up early in the morning to go running but yet you give yourself so much extra thinking time between the bed and the door to reject the motivation before you even go out. Finding your running stuff. Going to another closet to get your shoes and then you've got to find your keys - not forgetting the distractive email that's come in over night. Simple solution. Wear your running clothes to bed. have your shoes by the bed in the morning with the socks and keys in the shoes and off you go - no looking at your email either. 20 seconds and you are out the door and running.


Now to how to get rid of bad habits. If watching TV is a bad habit, lose the remote. This means you have to get up to turn the TV on and then get up each time to change channels. You've suddenly made TV too much hassle to bother with. Likewise at work with email distractions. Do this next time you're in the office. Quit your email and set your computer so that it doesn't remember passwords. This way each time you go to view email, you have to open the email and put in your password. It seems counter-intuitive because it's demanding more time from you but it's only 20 seconds and it ensures you regain control over when you view your email.


Bottom line is, you put bad habits 20 seconds further away and you make good habits within 20 seconds of activation. 


Screen_shot_2011-02-20_at_8


Principle #7 Social Investment

In the midst of challenges and stress, some people choose to hunker down and retreat within themselves. But the most successful people invest in their friends, peers, and family members to propel themselves forward. This principle teaches us how to invest more in one of the greatest predictors of success and excellence - our social network.


There's a stack of research out there that shows working with people you like leads to better results. As Jim Collins said in Good to Great "The people we interviewed from good to great companies clearly loved what they did largely because they loved who they did it with." And to add to the urgency of this thought, there's a stack of research out there that shows working for someone you don't like can kill you. One report - 'A bad boss can send you to an early grave' by Bradberry, T. Philanthropy Journal (2009) - found that employees who had a difficult relationship with their boss were 30 percent more likely to suffer from coronary heart disease. 


So we know relationships with family and friends are important and beneficial but what I'll focus on here is how to get the best out of relationships at a professional level.


One quote to feed your mind before offering up ideas is from Brian Sutton-Smith, a leading psychologist of play, who said 


The opposite of play isn't work. It's depression.


Action Steps

Invest in new relationships but also reinvest in current relationships. Social support networks grow stronger the longer they are held.


When walking the corridors, greet colleagues and remember to look in their eyes - looking into their eyes actually sends a signal to the brain that triggers empathy and rapport.


Ask interested questions, schedule face-to-face meetings, and initiate conversations that aren't always task orientated.


Supporting people during good times plays a critical role in a relationship. Sharing upbeat news with someone helps multiply the benefits of the positive event as well as strengthen the bond between the two people. How you respond to the good news is key to gaining the benefits. Shelly Gable, a leading psychologist at the University of California, argues that there are four types of responses we can give to someone's good news, and importantly, only one of them contributed positively to the relationship. The winning response is both active and constructive; it offers enthusiastic support, as well as specific comments and follow-up questions. ("That's wonderful! I'm glad your boss noticed how hard you've been working. When does your promotion go into effect?") Interestingly, her research shows passive responses to good news ("That's nice.") can be just as harmful to the relationship as blatantly negative ones ("You got the promotion? I'm surprised they didn't give to Sally, she seems more suited to the job.") The most destructive though is ignoring the news entirely ("Have you seen my keys?").


A leader's responsibility is significant. When a new employee joins the company, the leader should take time to introduce them to everyone. Watching where people congregate to chat, a leader should make the space more comfortable for people to hang like adding couches and coffee machines. Introducing two employees to each other who don't know each other is an important opportunity to build social capital in the company. Interestingly coercing employees into awkward icebreakers or forced bonding activities, like making everyone at a meeting share something about their private lives, only breeds disconnection and mistrust. Don't do it.


To conclude on the social question, genuine acts of encouragement and appreciation in person, via email or the phone will make a difference to you and the recipient, so get going.  


Smiling-dog


TO CONCLUDE

First of all, be thankful that I didn't cover off such interesting mind twisting stuff as Jennifer Michael Hecht's substantial argument on the benefits of thinking about death as a way of appreciating the present moment in her book The Happiness Myth.


The subject of happiness has a sense of new found love with much of the research and conclusive findings coming in to play in the last decade. 


As I studied the subject there was a mix of hope and cynicism - almost embarrassment - with the corny nature of the dialogue but I'm past that now and I hope you will get the same feeling after reading this post. This may sound like a push for Scientology - I assure you it's not. Maybe I'm just being influenced by the great article on that subject in the New Yorker.


I'm aware of the absence of multiple research references in this post but that was based on keeping to an economy of words and respecting your attention span. As mentioned earlier, check out some of the sources suggested below to get a more substantive discourse on the subject.


The seven principles offered by Achor offer a constructive starting point for getting to a happier place. It's about longevity rather than single shots, so give it time and see whether it works for you.


Starting everyday with a smile and positive thoughts goes a considerable distance in achieving a state of happiness, so why not start with that and see how you progress.


I'll finish with a quote from Antoine de Saint Exupery


As for the future, your task is not to see it, but to enable it.



Please let us know your state of mind and what you do to find happiness. 


Sources

1. The Happiness Advantage by Shawn Achor

2. The How of Happiness by Sonja Lyubomirsky

3. Happier by Tal Ben-Shahar

4. Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi

5. Reality is Broken by Jane McGonigal

6. Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert

7. Good to Great by Jim Collins

8. The Happiness Myth  by Jennifer Michael Hecht


All referenced research papers are cited next to the reference except for 'Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology  Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006)

Filed under  //  Thought leadership  
Posted

How the internet gets inside us

Books_explaining_why_books_no_

Gopnik's New Yorker 'Critic at Large' article on How the internet gets inside us http://nyr.kr/dGmHYw is definitely worth a read not just for the brilliance of skill in reviewing a multitude of books focusing on the subject of the internet but also for his insightful perspective on how we react and are reacting to invention.

Here's an excerpt that demonstrates the quality of his argument but also reveals a conclusion that he makes on parallel inventions. 

Shirky’s and Tooby’s version of Never-Betterism has its excitements, but the history it uses seems to have been taken from the back of a cereal box. The idea, for instance, that the printing press rapidly gave birth to a new order of information, democratic and bottom-up, is a cruel cartoon of the truth. If the printing press did propel the Reformation, one of the biggest ideas it propelled was Luther’s newly invented absolutist anti-Semitism. And what followed the Reformation wasn’t the Enlightenment, a new era of openness and freely disseminated knowledge. What followed the Reformation was, actually, the Counter-Reformation, which used the same means—i.e., printed books—to spread ideas about what jerks the reformers were, and unleashed a hundred years of religious warfare. In the seventeen-fifties, more than two centuries later, Voltaire was still writing in a book about the horrors of those other books that urged burning men alive in auto-da-fé. Buried in Tooby’s little parenthetical—“where they exist”—are millions of human bodies. If ideas of democracy and freedom emerged at the end of the printing-press era, it wasn’t by some technological logic but because of parallel inventions, like the ideas of limited government and religious tolerance, very hard won from history.

...and here's an excerpt that talks to the parallels of mind and non-mind.

At any given moment, our most complicated machine will be taken as a model of human intelligence, and whatever media kids favor will be identified as the cause of our stupidity. When there were automatic looms, the mind was like an automatic loom; and, since young people in the loom period liked novels, it was the cheap novel that was degrading our minds. When there were telephone exchanges, the mind was like a telephone exchange, and, in the same period, since the nickelodeon reigned, moving pictures were making us dumb. When mainframe computers arrived and television was what kids liked, the mind was like a mainframe and television was the engine of our idiocy. Some machine is always showing us Mind; some entertainment derived from the machine is always showing us Non-Mind.

Filed under  //  Technology   Thought leadership  
Posted

Vulnerability

<!--copy and paste-->

This is one of the best TED talks I've heard in ages.

Very powerful.

Thanks Ivy for bringing it to my attention

Filed under  //  Thought leadership  
Posted

Negotiation is an endurance sport

Image_preview-1

The second post influenced by Monocle magazine.

In a recent article, Monocle interviewed some of the top negotiators in the world who are dealing with such things as peace in the Middle East, Pirates in Somalia and Hostage situations in Mexico.

They concluded from these interviews that 10 skill sets were essential to good negotiation.

Given that most of us at some stage or another are in a negotiation of sorts, I thought this list might be helpful.

What I particularly like is the sense of athleticism that comes through the list. The active nature of negotiation while keeping a cool head is the main message for me from this list.
 
1. Stamina: Negotiation is an endurance sport. The ability to stick at it  through hours, weeks, months, sometimes decades of painstaking talks, is a must.

2. Humor: A gifted negotiator can crack a well-timed joke without offense.

3. Creativity: A skilled negotiator has fresh ideas - the ability to think around an impasse is critical.

4. Fox-like wiles: A good negotiator must have a plan - and an agile, strategical one at that.

5. Lion-like leadership: Gravitas and stature inspire - without these a negotiator can find well argued points fall by the wayside. (Courage to make a concession without appearing weak is crucial to a resolution.)

6. Empathy: A first-class negotiator can see the other side's interests while never losing sight of his own.

7. Unflappability: There will always be "wreckers". A good negotiator can brush off the opposition's histrionics and bullying bravado and focus on the process.

8. Eloquence: A top-rate negotiator must have an articulate argument (steeped in research) and a firm grasp of international etiquette - a bow in Japan or a bear hug in Russia can make or break a rapport.

9. Stubborn resolve: There's a time and a place for the "broken record" approach. A good negotiator knows when bullish determinations wins.

10. Vision: A truly skilled negotiator must have belief in a big-picture end-goal, no matter the odds.

Reflecting on this list, it feels to me like all these skills should be present in a good account lead and a good client CMO. 

I also enjoyed in the article the challenge of understanding in negotiation, especially when it comes to language and meaning. For example, in Farsi, Turkish and Arabic, there's no direct translation for the English word "compromise". The notion of a 'spirit of compromise'  is an Anglo-Saxon concept. "The very idea of 'a concession' in Middle Eastern languages is often synonymous with surrender" according to the linguistic historian Raymond Cohen.

Language and meaning is often a challenge in our business even when we speak the same language. Like when a client asks for something radical - something that makes them feel uncomfortable - and the agency reads this as a complete departure from their current brand communications. What the client usually means is a maximum of a 5 degree shift. Like negotiation, it's often about understanding the meaning behind a statement and respecting the different cultures - business Vs agency - that results in a successful outcome.

Filed under  //  Thought leadership  
Posted

You can't manage what you don't measure

Mental-strength-checklist

I'm going to openly steal from two great articles in Monocle magazine.

This post focuses on Soft Power, which I'm going to use as a challenge to create a better assessment process for prospective talent and clients, and the next post looks at Negotiation.

Monocle describes Soft Power as "The ability of a state to achieve a desired outcome through the leveraging of legitimacy or better still, attraction".

I was thinking that shouldn't the advertising agency world take some learning from this Soft Power Index as they look for more legitimate ways to attract talent and clients.

So in an effort to start the dialogue, I thought I would take the metrics used for assessing a state's Soft Power Index and translate the metrics to gear them towards the advertising industry.

There are 20 metrics used:
1. Number of foreign correspondents in the country
Translation - Number of collaborations the agency has on board (People and companies they like to collaborate with on projects) - who and how many do they collaborate with?

2. Audience figures abroad for state-sponsored media
T - Business/audience success metrics for work 

3. Gold medals in last summer and winter olympics
T - Awards - across all discplines

4. Number of tourists per year
T - Number of new clients and brand portfolio gain among existing clients

5. Official Development Assistance as percentage of GDP
T - Investment in training

6. HDI ranking. UN ranking that includes life expectancy
T - What initiatives and incentives are in place geared to personal fitness and health

7. Wold Bank Global Government Initiative ranking
T - Number of projects initiated by the agency without client briefing

8. Freedom House Score
T - Industry publication scorecards

9. Number of foreign students per 1,000 of population
T - Diversity of staff and foreign members of staff

10. Number of Universities in TES top 200
T - Spread of staff education qualifications (watch out for too many MBAs and too few MFAs)

11. WEF Competitiveness Index
T - New business league table ranking

12. WEF Trust in Government Scores
T - Client score cards

13. Transparency International Corruption Index
T - Staff rating of agency social scene

14. Henley & Partners Visa Restriction Index
T - Categories or brands an agency refuses to work with

15. Number of patents per year
T - Number of innovations in connecting with consumers and building client business

16. Inward Foreign Direct Investment
T - Increase in existing client billings

17. Position on Anholt-Gtk Roper Nation Brands Index
T - Number of major brands on the roster 

18. Cultural missions abroad
T - Engagement with local arts and culture

19. Foreign languages spoken by prime minister or president
T - Number of media channels where the agency is actively engaged

20. Number of speakers of the language outside the country
T - Where people have moved to after leaving the company

Ok, so I've squeezed some in that don't fit well under the scrutiny of translation but I used the Soft Power metrics as something to lean on rather than be guided by. 

I also feel like a few metrics are missing for those who want to assess whether this is an agency to work with. A good example of this would be how many IPs have been initiated by the agency? 

If we started to create a serious survey that looks at these elements much like Monocle has for countries around the world, then maybe agencies would start to behave in the new ways they currently only talk about.

What also frustrates me is our industry's lack of engagement on such subject matters. Why don't the industry publications  behave more like Monocle? Why doesn't the AAAAs start to look at these sorts of assessments to guide the industry towards a new chapter? I don't deny that there are good things going on at the AAAAs but perhaps it's not enough.

Filed under  //  Thought leadership  
Posted

You May Never Fail on the Scale I Did

Screen_shot_2011-01-31_at_12

Failure is one of those subjects that in my mind has a disproportionate level of coverage versus its opposition - success, which is why I chose to try to understand it better. 

Why do we fear it? Why do others say that we are letting ourselves down by not experiencing it? Why is the subject of failure treated with broad brush strokes when its presence is often one of complexity? 

What I want to cover in this not so pithy post is the subject of failure, why it's good for us, how people cope with it or not, methods for learning from it, and arguments that suggest that failure alone should not be our north star for learning and development.

The title of this piece comes from JK Rowling's commencement address at Harvard. She states "You might never fail on the scale I did, but some failure in life is inevitable. It is impossible to live without failing at something, unless you live so cautiously that you might as well not have lived at all - in which case, you fail by default." It's a clear call for pushing oneself to the edge of anything you pursue and dealing with failure as one of the possible consequences. JK Rowling's speech offers many interesting aspects on the benefits of failure, which I'll come on to later. 

In the meantime, Evan Schwartz, in his book Juice: The Creative Fuel That Drives World-Class Inventors, makes a good point about the generality of failure offering up a multitude of possible reactions to failure. "Sometimes, failure tells you to give up and do something else entirely. Other times, it tells you to try a different approach, a new route to the top of the mountain. Or it may tell you to make a detour. Sometimes, it tells you that you need help. Sometimes, it doesn't seem to tell you anything."

This last point is an important one as Lane Wallace states after querying her own experience of failure "I haven't figured out yet whether I get to learn something from this, or if I just get to feel bad for a while." It's probably best to consider that there are going to be times when you just don't learn anything. Failure 's discomfort can result in us wanting to run away from it as fast as possible but I would argue that failure forces feelings that help us develop "Even his griefs are a joy long after to one that remembers all that he wrought and endured." Homer. As we will see later these feelings play a critical role in our ability to learn from the experience.

Reused-light-bulbs

EMBRACING FAILURE
In an age of technology and engineering being the darling children of innovation, there's a strong cultural thermal around embracing failure. Across many of the articles and studies I read, there were continual pleas for it. 

"One of the things that distinguishes American culture from others is our passionate belief in second acts." Rich Karlgaard, Publisher Forbes Magazine, makes the case to think beyond the failure itself. To move on. 

However, most of us are not engineers and to be mean and opportunistic, I thought I would use a quote from Jimmy Buffet to make a point "Even the best navigators don't know for sure where they're going until they get there" To me this emphasizes the idea of a journey because for most of us it's not tinkering that gets us to success but a journey that we have to contend with. (Not sure yet if this could be a criticism of Steven Johnson's book).

To conclude thus far, I would argue we should embrace the experience of failure but also recognize that the majority of us  need help in understanding how to identify failure and how to learn from it when it's happening.   

20a-on-off-switch

I'M NOT WORKING WITH AN ON/OFF SWITCH
"I'll never forget it," says Linda Stone - a former apple employee - on overhearing a conversation between two well known inventors, Steve Wozniak and Dean Kamen. "They just were talking about all their failures, and how they both felt like failures. It was like they were bragging about various laboratory fiascoes and catastrophes. Every failure to them was a learning experience." 

Thomas Edison is famously reported to have tried over a thousand light bulb designs before finding one that worked. 

I get why engineers and their stories are often used as the context for embracing failure because the stories are simple, the repercussions are immediate and the solutions are invariably found to create a happy ending. Such subjects in the field of management are far more complex and in truth, this is where we need to see the embracing of failure most. Not just because of the need for greater openness and creativity but because the EQ factor of failure in management is still young and untrained. I would argue that management is the least capable at handling failure, reacting to it and learning from it. 

As Bob Sutton rightly asks "What can leaders do while bad things are happening so that learning and desirable change happens in the organization? After all, bad times and crises often arise in organizations, and go on for substantial stretches, placing pressure on leaders to make the best out of a bad situation as it unfolds (not just after it's over)." It's not easy for management to see where the failure is occurring and there needs to be more help in this territory going forward.

What I can offer is a great study by Alan Meyer, written in 1982 - Adapting to Environmental Jolts - published in the Administrative Science Quarterly, which offers a really interesting suggestion on how best to deal with the threat of failure and in particular how you react to it.

"After a major malpractice insurer abruptly terminated malpractice for 4,000 northern California doctors and told them that new insurance would come with a 400% increase in premiums, anesthesiologists went on a one-month strike in 1975 against doing any elective surgery. This caused an immediate and drastic drop in hospital admissions and cash flow." Meyer uncovered many nuances among 19 hospitals he analyzed but concluded "those hospitals that survived the strike best had leaders who consistently interpreted it as an opportunity rather than a threat. For example: one hospital tested a 'no layoff policy' which resulted in increased staff loyalty. Another saw it as a chance to do deep layoffs that it had believed were necessary for years and after the strike, administrators believed taking this opportunity gave them license to make changes that likely staved off an otherwise inevitable bankruptcy. Other hospitals viewed the strike as an opportunity to devote resources to attract nonsurgical patients, which not only helped them endure the strike but also left them with greater income after the strike was over. Less successful hospitals framed the strike as a debilitating threat, making no attempts to act." [Resulting in their failure to survive.]

Bob Sutton refers to Meyer's research in his post on failure "Meyer's research shows that whether a challenge is framed as an opportunity or a threat has a huge effect on how people respond. The opportunity frame leads to far more adaptive behavior and learning than the 'threat' frame."

It sounds obvious but being on the front foot with the threat of failure is a must for those who want to learn, adapt and move on.

4029

MANAGING EMOTIONS
How we approach failure is one thing but according to a number of research studies, how we react to it plays a critical role in future development.

According to Dean A. Shepherd's excellent book Managing Emotions to Learn From Failure, there are three typical reactions to failure: 1). The emotional pain is so great for the person experiencing failure that they give up and do not try again. 2). The person responsible for the failure blames others not themselves and they throw themselves in to the next project without learning the reasons for the project's failure and is therefore destined to make the same mistakes repeatedly. 3). The person manages the emotions generated by the project failure so that they are less painful, occur for a shorter period, and no longer keep them from learning from the failure.

The experience can cover a multitude of emotions. As Shepherd offers when talking of his father's experience when his own business crashed "There was numbness and disbelief that this business he created and managed for all those years was gone. There was some anger toward the economy, competitors, and creditors. Stronger emotions than anger were guilt and self-blame. He felt guilty that he had caused a failure; guilty that the business could no longer be passed on to my brother; and guilty that he not only failed as a businessman, but felt that he had failed as a father. All this caused him great distress and anxiety, which in turn caused the rest of the family great distress and anxiety." 

The pain of failure or just the sheer embarrassment and shame of it can leave you wondering why you would want to dwell on it but I want to use this opportunity to argue for two points. First, it can be liberating "I'm not going to stand here and tell you failure is fun", says JK Rowling in her commencement address, "that period of my life was a dark one, and I had no idea that there was going to be what the press has since represented as a kind of fairy tale resolution. I had no idea how far the tunnel extended, and for a long time, any light at the end of it was a hope rather than a reality. I was set free, because my greatest fear had already been realized, and I was still alive, and I still had a daughter whom I adored, and I had an old typewriter and a big idea. And so rock bottom became the solid foundation on which I rebuilt my life."

Second, if you deal with it in the right frame of mind, it can be hugely beneficial. The emphasis here is on being in the right frame of mind. I feel like beating my chest with untold enthusiasm when I hear the likes of Linda Stone, ex employee at Apple, offer up the perspective "Every failure should be seen as a part of progress." but if we are simply embracing failure and not understanding how to deal with it in a constructive way, then surely we are gaining nothing.

Which is why I give credence to Dean A. Shepherd's work in this area because he has proven that reactions do affect our response to failure but he also offers up solutions to avoid succumbing to the natural emotional reactions we contend with. "Learning from failure is not instantaneous; it requires time. It is not automatic; it requires a process that can be managed such that learning from failure can be maximized."

He starts with an example to illustrate the right and wrong way to deal with failure, which I paraphrase here. "[Paraphrasing] Two colleagues pitch for business both knowing that only 1 in 5 pitches are successful in their company. Both pitches are failures. Both colleagues immediately react in a similar way with high emotions and high rejection of the feedback. Later, colleague number one once settling down after the news, comes back to review comments offered by the company she failed to win and from her boss and on the next occasion, she reflected the feedback in her next pitch and she won it. Colleague number two, just moved on and never reviewed the feedback. He failed to win future business and was eventually let go." 

Importantly, two thoughts come to mind for me here: First,  there's a right time to review feedback and it's not straight after rejection because your mind is not in the right state then. Second, make sure to use this time to ensure you get all the feedback you need for future review.

Shepherd's perspective is also born out in research "In laboratory experiments. negative emotions have been found to interfere with an individual's allocation of attention in processing information. Such interference diminishes our ability to learn from the failure event. Negative emotional aspects of an event receive higher priority in processing information than positive or neutral emotional aspects. The emotional interference means that we prematurely terminate in working memory the facts that proceeded the emotional event. For example, in focusing on the emotional events leading up to the failure, our mind keeps shifting to the day the project was terminated. We dwell on the announcement to employees, buyers, suppliers, neighbors; how bad everyone felt; the moment of handing over the office keys to the liquidator and leaving the parking lot for the last time. By focusing on these highly salient, emotional events, we do not allocate attention to information that would serve as important feedback for learning. Insufficient attention (and subsequently, diminished information processing capacity) is paid to the actions and inactions that caused the deterioration in performance and ultimately the project's failure." 

The bottom line is that "We enhance our learning when we manage our emotions and recover from our emotional pain more quickly." 

47302518

LEARNING FROM THE EXPERIENCE
"Do we actually learn from failures and use that knowledge to reap future success?" As Lane Wallace rightly points out, " The statistics on second marriages are not encouraging." 

According to Paul A. Gompers, Professor at Harvard Business School and the lead researcher in a Harvard Business School study who looked at the success rates of entrepreneurs, found in his study that "For the average entrepreneur who failed, no learning happened." 

Shepherd's study suggests a balanced world of those who learn and those who don't but I suspect that people trip up all too quickly on one of the many areas of obfuscation offered above - blaming; ignoring it as if it's a negative voice whispering in your ear trying to spoil your chance of future success; the list goes on. What's clear is that Lane Wallace's perspective is spot on "Learning from failure has two important dimensions: First is learning from failure itself, in the sense that it can lead to better iterations, ideas, or directions, and therefore increase your chances of success down the line. The second dimension is learning to cope with the fact of failure itself." 

Maze

ARE WE WASTING OUR TIME FOCUSING ON FAILURE? 
The recent Harvard Business School study referred to above looks at the success rate of entrepreneurs to what difference previous success (failure) made on subsequent start-up ventures, offers up two key statistics that indicate greater learning comes from success rather than failure. "A previously successful entrepreneur with an experienced/successful VC experienced a 32.4% success rate second time around Vs an entrepreneur after failure if paired with an equal experienced/successful VC 25.9%."

As Jason F. from 37 Signals argues passionately "I don't understand the cultural fascination with failure being the source of great lessons to be learned. What did you learn? You learned what didn't work. Now you won't make the same mistake twice, but you're just as likely to make a different mistake next time. You might know what won't work, but you still don't know what will work. That's not much of a lesson." He then goes on to offer some good guidance on a different approach to learning. "Instead, put most of your energy into studying your successes. What have you done right? What worked? Why did it work? How you can repeat it?" He then concludes with this passioned plea " Instead of making something worse a little better, how about making something good a little better? Don't spend so much time looking down. Look up more."  

Jason's plea makes complete sense but I would argue that it doesn't have to be so black and white. In fact whether you finish with a success or failure, learning can be rich in both experiences and invariably both are touched during the journey to your objective. As Randy Komisar - Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers - a leading Silicon valley VC firm - states, "Research shows that the number of businesses who succeed with Plan B versus Plan A appears large suggesting that an iterative approach to combatting failure is present among successful entrepreneurs." In other words let's not create a pattern of response that's simply based on the outcome but let's look at the stages of the journey and ensure we capture the experiences good and bad, along the way.

The context of reviewing these experiences also has an effect on how we learn. According to some very insightful research from Tel Aviv University's study by Schmuel Ellis, which appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology, they carried out a field experiment with two companies of soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces. They  were tested for their performance on navigation exercises. "The critical difference between the two groups was that - following standard practice in the Israeli military - the first company had a series of after event reviews during four days of navigation exercises that focused only on the mistakes the soldiers made, and how to correct them. The second company, in its after event discussions, focused on what could be learned from both their successes and failures. The results showed that: 1). Soldiers who discussed both successes and failures learned at higher rates than soldiers who discussed just failures. 2). Soldiers in the group that discussed both successes and failures appeared to learn faster because they developed 'richer mental models' of their experiences than soldiers who only discussed failures."

Interestingly in later research, they found that experiencing failure does lead to richer mental models than experiencing success. Schmuel Ellis concludes that "after people succeed at a task, they learn the most when they think about what went wrong. After people succeed at something, it is especially important to have them focus on what things went wrong. They learn more than if they just focus on success." It seems counter intuitive and I'm sure those pushing the case for Positive Psychology will flinch at my suggestion here but it appears some level of negativity provides a richer foundation for learning.

Of course this research has been countered already. Researchers at MIT's Picower Institute looked at neuron reactions to correct and incorrect answers, monitoring neurons in the monkey's prefrontal cortex and the basal ganglia - two areas of the brain thought to be involved in learning. They found "these neurons actually became more 'finely tuned' after a correct response than after an incorrect response. 'When the animal had a failure, there was virtually no change in neural processing, the neurons didn't improve at all." This research was carried out very recently and is very limited in its robustness, so care should be taken with it. I thought about excluding it but given the potential ramifications of these findings, it seems at least prudent for our antennas to be alert to future findings in this area.

For now, I'm sticking with the view that we should learn from the successes and failures experienced along the way and pay very good attention to the data capture of the experience throughout the journey. This way, the learning is maximized. 

Lane Wallace says it better than me. "Anyone setting out on unchartered territory can't know what they will encounter along the way, or where they will eventually end up - even if they have a clear direction of goal at the start. Which is why a central key to success, for any explorer, is learning to recognize wrong turns or mistakes, learn from them, and adjust course accordingly: Navigate, Evaluate and Innovate." 

Belloriginal

FINALLY...
I hope this piece will provoke some thoughts on your actions going forward. I have to admit , I'm surprised that I couldn't find any coverage on an issue I have experienced in people, which is the incredible ability to vaporize every failure as if it never happened. I don't know how to help those who act this way but one thing's for sure, they will be left behind when others evolve through the experience.

Failure appears in multiple guises - big and small - and dealing with it along the way makes us stronger. Randy Komisar touches on the appeal of those who have experienced failure "I like to back entrepreneurs who have succeeded, for the right reasons, but also have failed once or more along the way. That way I know they have the resiliency and flexibility to find success amongst the failures."

I would like to end by offering up two thoughts: one from David Kelley, Founder d.school, Stanford, which for me is a reminder to go out and have fun "If you are making the same mistakes again and again, you aren't learning anything. If you keep making new and different mistakes, that means you are doing new things and learning new things." The other is from Bob Sutton, Professor of Management Science and Engineering and Organizational Behavior at Stanford, who sums up the potential feeling and benefits best "Failure sucks, but instructs." After sitting this subject for a while, I would change this slightly to make sense of what I've learnt but ruin the poetry of his thought: Failure sucks, success rocks but both should instruct.

Sources:
1. JK.Rowling - Author - Commencement Address at Harvard
2. Evan Schwartz - Author - Juice: The Creative Fuel That Drives World-Class Inventors  
3. Randy Komisar - Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers - a leading Silicon valley VC firm
4. Lane Wallace - Writer, Adventurer, Speaker and Blogger
5. Dean A. Shepherd - Author - Managing Emotions to Learn From Failure
6. Bob Sutton - Professor of Management Science and Engineering and Professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford 
7. Shmuel Ellis - Professor, Tel Aviv University - Journal of Applied Psychology 
8. Alan Meyer - Adapting to Environmental Jolts, Administrative Science Quarterly (1982)
9. David Kelley - Founder, d.School, Stanford
10. MIT Picower Institute
11. Rich Karlgaard - Publisher, Forbes Magazine
12. Linda Stone - past employee of both Apple and Microsoft
13. Jimmy Buffett - Musician
14. Paul A. Gompers - Professor at Harvard Business School
15. Jason F. 37Signals

Filed under  //  Thought leadership  
Posted

Uncomplicated Really

P00016

A number of friends sent me the Fast Company article yesterday on the future of advertising http://bit.ly/cb4qiD.

It's a juicy read for sure but I think Neil Christie's (W+K) post in October gets to the core of the question http://bit.ly/bGobYA 

It's all about W+K of course but fair enough.

Filed under  //  Thought leadership   advertising  
Posted

Ideas have Enemies

Img_0026

Tom Carroll kindly handed me a copy of John Hunt's book 'The Art of the Idea ...and how it can change your life'.

I have a lot of time for John Hunt, especially given the fact that he made a trip from South Africa to South Beach Miami to speak at a conference I co-chaired for the AAAAs and he delivered a thoughtful piece on sparking ideas.

John's book title promises to be a celebration of ideas but turns out to be a rant on what feels like a lifetime of ideas being killed by one thing or another.

Every chapter points to the potential threat on an idea but occasionally it delivers a gem of advice on how to ensure an idea doesn't get killed.

His first chapter talks to two types of people - the sunrise and the sunset people. This book seems to focus on the sunset of ideas and that's probably the most effective way to make his point but I would love there to be a second book on where or how ideas originate for him. Maybe he would just agree that such a book already exists and to this day it's still one of the best on the subject "A Technique for Producing Ideas" by James Webb Young. 


Some key quotes that I liked from John's book:

Sunset people don't kill ideas, they just take away all the oxygen surrounding them.

It's the reassuring nature of habit that produces its stickiness.

Most of the world's greatest ideas were first very fragile thoughts.

Disband the politburo and declare an idea democracy - we are all equal before an idea.

Those with the thickest files and the most saved documents on their desktops are often those furthest from crisp, clear thinking.

Ideas don't come from existing facts but from the holes we drill through them.

It's critical to aim high. No matter the context, an idea needs a decent arc. It needs to leap out of the present sameness and clearly carry everyone who's following it to the other side. Even with an original thought [idea] wrapped tightly in your head, it's tough to leap an abyss in two bounds.

Expediency is extremely corrosive to ideas. It allows you to marinate in the mediocre. Everyone is content, but no one is ecstatic.

An idea is a paradigm shifting moment that forward projects future potential in an initially ethereal but progressively tangible manner.

A faux intellectual wouldn't know an idea if he sat on one, but quickly recognizes a thought that, in discussion, could make him look smart.

Just because the wheel was such a breakthrough, doesn't mean is has to stay in stone or wood. Some ideas are so fundamental and powerful they are reincarnated year after year. Others are destined to bloom for a few months and then die.

Thinking without a sense of urgency rarely sees the light of day.

At the beginning of the process [developing ideas], the closer everyone is physically the better. Even if the thought is clearly articulated [by email or phone] it's not attached to the mood. And an idea in its early stages, without the positive atmosphere around it, is tough to float.

Genius is nearly always the outside view looking in; the clever coupling of two or more seemingly disparate things.

We don't know what we don't know until we do what we don't usually do.

The gap between what you already know and what you're exploring is often where the best ideas pop up.

No one orders a bouquet of beige flowers.

I now strongly believe ownership is much less important than portability. Even if it's your idea, the smartest thing to do is hand it over immediately and declare it their idea.

The world rallies behind a cause not an instruction.

* Yes the picture is intentionally upside down and refers to a chapter in John's book about disrupting the commonality around you. Uncomfortable isn't it?

Filed under  //  Thought leadership  
Posted

Basketball Teachings

Basketball_12

I'm currently studying gaming and game design based on a belief that this will be a driving force in consumer engagement moving forward and I came across this gem that for me (with the added perspective of Dave Hickey's Air Guitar essay) captures the whole spirit of collaboration and really provides a basis for a new approach to work. 

Call me ignorant but I had no idea how relevant basketball could me to the conversations going on today. 

1. There must be a ball: it should be large

(This is a prescient expectation of Connie Hawkins and Julius Erving, whose hands would reinvent basketball as profoundly as Jimi Hendrix's bands reinvented rock-and-roll)

2. There will be no running with the ball
(Thus mitigating the privileges of owning portable property. Extended ownership of the ball is a virtue in football. Possession of the ball in basketball is never ownership; it is always temporary and contingent upon doing something else with it.)

3. No man on either team shall be restricted from getting the ball at any time that it is in play
(Thus eliminating the job specialization that exists in football, by whose rules only those players in "skilled positions" may touch the ball. The rest just help. In basketball there are skills peculiar to each position, but everyone must run, jump, catch, shoot, pass and defend.)

4. Both teams are to occupy the same area, yet there is to be no personal contact
(thus no rigorous territoriality, nor any rewards for violently invading your opponent's territory unless you score. The model for football is the drama of adjacent nations at war. The model for basketball is the polyglot choreography of uran sidewalks.)

5. The goal shall be horizontal and elevated
(The most Jeffersonian principle of all: Labor must be matched by aspiration. To score, you must work your way down court, but you must also elevate! Ad astra.)

James Naismith's Guiding Principles of Basketball, 1891 (With commentary by Dave Hickey - Air Guitar - "The Heresy of Zone Defense"

Filed under  //  Thought leadership   engagement   gaming  
Posted

Learning from Dogs

Img_0022

Last weekend I was walking along Stinson Beach and watched two dogs playing. One was focused on getting the recently launched ball, while the other chose to focus on simply getting in the way of the other dog's progress. It made me think of the book idea I had a few years back - What can dogs teach us? Never did anything with that idea but it's still there in the back of my mind.

The idea started with my dog Ilsa, who would chase butterflies for hours. The trouble was she always chased the shadows rather than looking up to see the butterflies. It reminded me of a number of things including of course Plato. First, something spectacular can be missed by focusing on the wrong things and by keeping our focus too narrow. That's why understanding the concept of the adjacent possible is important in our business. Secondly, it reminded me that looking down all the time makes you miss out on so much - whether that's the beauty that surrounds you like a Manhattan skyline Vs the pavement or how a consumer behaves with your product Vs looking down at the boardroom table.

Many more philosophical thoughts came from this one observation and Ilsa provided a ton of good observations for me. (Ilsa lives happily with my ex wife in case you were worried.)

So back to the dogs on the beach, which by the way Dolly - my dog now - completely ignored because she was focused on chasing birds. Watching these dogs made me think of the four behaviors of dogs in relation to ball chasing. There's the dog who's obsessed about getting the ball and nothing distracts them. There's the dog that is constantly trying to impede the first dog's goal for no reason - it's not like they have a better game in mind or that they are distracting to try to get the ball themselves. Then there's the third kind of dog that watches, observes technique and learns. They then become like the first dog but have a better technique. Finally, there's the dog that just doesn't go for the ball. They either have something much better to do like chasing birds or they simply just sit there - as if they are thinking 'been there, done that and it's not that interesting. It's just a ball'.

Obviously, I love the strategist dog that observes, thinks and then goes ball chasing using a better technique. I love the first dog that just goes for the ball and delivers on the objective. I respect the last dog that says it's not for me but I really struggle with the second dog that gets in the way for no reason and my problem is that there are too many of these in business.

They may disguise themselves through the occasional interesting question (on a good day) but invariably they are the ones who knock ideas down without having a better idea. They claim to be too busy to help guide others yet no one knows what exactly they are doing. They whisper in corridors. They agree with you in meetings and then talk others out of the idea once the meeting is over. They are generally obstructive with no end goal in mind.

With dogs, I guess you can stop that dog from playing but at the end of the day it's not that bothersome for the other dogs so probably not worth doing. In business however, I think these people are completely bothersome and we need to reduce their impact. My solution has been to bypass them after of course challenging them head on but I don't think bypassing them is the best solution. What has worked best for me is to create very accountable goals. Giving them clear goals is like teaching the disruptive dog to get the ball. It works but it takes work. Is it worth it? That's up for debate and my recommendation is to always be in search of better talent to replace those that take up too much oxygen but while there's a dearth of talent, it has to better to teach an old dog new tricks than let it continue to be an old dog.

Filed under  //  Thought leadership  
Posted