the three categories into which all experiences, concepts and things can be divided
Sunday, August 24, 2008
being known vs just being
Several years ago I was in a company all-hands meeting where one of the speakers posited the idea that it was highly important that our clients felt like we were experts. After the meeting one of my enlightened co-workers opined that it would be better to "be experts" rather than to be "thought of as experts".
I am often faced by this subtle differentiation both in the workplace, in politics and in personal relationships where people focus on being known for something or being perceived as something rather than just plain being what they want to be.
One of the consequences of this differentiation is that the overriding focus on the perception is actually one of the barriers that will prevent the reality from occurring.
Does Apple want to make the best products or be known for making the best products?
Does Adaptive Path want to make the best user experiences or be known for making the best user experiences?
Does Chad Johnson want to be the best wide receiver or be known for being the best wide receiver?
Does Barack Obama want to help the poor or be known as candidate who is out to help the poor?
Does John McCain want to always talk straight or be known as candidate who always talks straight?
Stop worrying about being known and just be!
Managing perception = Garbage.
Managing Reality = Like it.
Labels:
authenticity,
branding,
semantics,
word play
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Inconceivable!
No not in that way...
While this blog does often talk about the elusive nature and meaning of words and it sometimes plays with them, I am not going to talk about the meaning of "inconceivable". Rather, what I find to be inconceivable is that so many people do not understand the meaning of the word "sorry".... hmmmmm, no that's not it. I do think they understand it, I just don't believe that they grasp what it means to actually mean it.
So many people use it as an attempt to claim compassion or empathy. While in reality what they actually mean is that they are uncomfortable with the current situation and either:
- don't know what to say
- want your absolution of any wrong-doing
- want to be acknowledged as permitted to end the current portion of the conversation
In business contexts - a retail or service employee will say "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" or something else with a similar supposed meaning. What I find offensive is that they believe I should accept it at it's face value when they are un-willing to back up said sorrow with any action or any actual attempt to make amends. The lack of any willingness to make amends robs the supposed empathy of any sincerity or meaning.
Professed empathy without sincerity makes "sorry" a platitude - a trite remark uttered as if it has actual meaning.
The crux of the matter is this - If a service employee says "I'm sorry" in the above fashion without any actual sincerity but as a means to end a topic of contention, then they are essentially assuming:
- that I should believe that they actually have empathy for me
- that saying "I'm sorry" is sufficient to make amends
- that I should belive that saying "I'm sorry" is sufficient to make amends
Why? Because in the world of falseness - people crave authenticity! Smart customers don't judge the character of your company when things go right, they judge it by your conduct when things go wrong.
Insincere platitudes - crap.
Authentic responses - like them.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
We don't need to build the Bentley... or do we?
It's been a while since I've been inspired. Some recent experiences have pushed me to the keyboard once again.
Lately, I've been seeing a common myopia (HAH! SEEING! MYOPIA! That's a joke son! Don't you get it? I'm too fast for you! You'll never learn nothing with your nose in a blog boy!) . The people who typically surround me are overachievers and we all seem to share a passion for excellence in what we do. This is not so strange. What is strange and interesting is that when we ask for something from others and have certain constraints (like time or money) we seem to lose some ability to empathize with the passion for excellence from the other party.
In a past life, we called it "building the Bentley syndrome" - the endemic need in groups of overachievers that nothing but their best work was remotely acceptable. In trying to lead teams of overachievers, I am constantly faced with this problem... and I think I have made some sort of break-through.
I've tried the "redefine" approach where "best" is subjective and requires a balance of all constraints to little avail.
I am loathe to try the "dictatorial" approach where my option is the only option. I feel that this option is doomed with people who bristle at authority.
Well, maybe break-through is a little strong. Gained some new insight is more appropriate. Maybe what people need is a little understanding and empathy. All the people around me want to create "remarkable" solutions and feel that shortcuts and delivering to managed expectations is not very remarkable. When challenged on their approach the replies basically come to this - it
is always easy to do something poorly. I agree with this sentiment - but my new retort will be, I understand your need to do your best work. I empathize with the need to shine. Please understand that even work that is half-assed by your standards will more than likely be better than anything the client has dreamed. Please empathize with the fact that the quality of work you are capable of delivering when you are not tying up every loose end will definitely exceed what the client is willing to pay for. Sometimes, if we deliver crisply, we leave clients wanting more. And over time, that delivery focus will lead to trust and partnership. That shared trust and context will allow us to do our best work and get paid appropriately for it.
Understanding & Empathy - Like em.
Lately, I've been seeing a common myopia (HAH! SEEING! MYOPIA! That's a joke son! Don't you get it? I'm too fast for you! You'll never learn nothing with your nose in a blog boy!) . The people who typically surround me are overachievers and we all seem to share a passion for excellence in what we do. This is not so strange. What is strange and interesting is that when we ask for something from others and have certain constraints (like time or money) we seem to lose some ability to empathize with the passion for excellence from the other party.
In a past life, we called it "building the Bentley syndrome" - the endemic need in groups of overachievers that nothing but their best work was remotely acceptable. In trying to lead teams of overachievers, I am constantly faced with this problem... and I think I have made some sort of break-through.
I've tried the "redefine" approach where "best" is subjective and requires a balance of all constraints to little avail.
I am loathe to try the "dictatorial" approach where my option is the only option. I feel that this option is doomed with people who bristle at authority.
Well, maybe break-through is a little strong. Gained some new insight is more appropriate. Maybe what people need is a little understanding and empathy. All the people around me want to create "remarkable" solutions and feel that shortcuts and delivering to managed expectations is not very remarkable. When challenged on their approach the replies basically come to this - it
is always easy to do something poorly. I agree with this sentiment - but my new retort will be, I understand your need to do your best work. I empathize with the need to shine. Please understand that even work that is half-assed by your standards will more than likely be better than anything the client has dreamed. Please empathize with the fact that the quality of work you are capable of delivering when you are not tying up every loose end will definitely exceed what the client is willing to pay for. Sometimes, if we deliver crisply, we leave clients wanting more. And over time, that delivery focus will lead to trust and partnership. That shared trust and context will allow us to do our best work and get paid appropriately for it.
Understanding & Empathy - Like em.
Labels:
authenticity,
excellence,
organizational behavior,
semantics
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Intolerant of Tolerance
Tolerance? WTF? To tolerate something literally means "to put up with" and has direct association with pain and hardship. Why on earth do we need to use tolerance as a term in reference to a lack of racial prejudice or hatred?
I don't think that any person who actually wants interpersonal harmony amongst different demographic groups wants to imply a negative connotation to the act of getting along with people who are different. But that's what the word means.
Well, I'm out. I am no longer using the word in that fashion. I am not tolerant of others who are different than me. I actively embrace those who are different from me. I want to know more about them, their culture and their ways. I want to learn all I can from them.
Tolerance = Garbage.
Acceptance on the other hand, I like!
I don't think that any person who actually wants interpersonal harmony amongst different demographic groups wants to imply a negative connotation to the act of getting along with people who are different. But that's what the word means.
Well, I'm out. I am no longer using the word in that fashion. I am not tolerant of others who are different than me. I actively embrace those who are different from me. I want to know more about them, their culture and their ways. I want to learn all I can from them.
Tolerance = Garbage.
Acceptance on the other hand, I like!
Labels:
authenticity,
semantics,
word play
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Friends. How many of us have them?
True Friends? What are those? Most friends these days are fair weather. It's easy to be a "good" friend when it's easy to be a good friend. How many will be there when you are under fire?
A friend of mine once told me that he knew that people in this country were basically good. He knew this because he has traveled extensively around the US and had to depend upon the kindness of strangers. What he saw were many people who were generous and giving. I understand and appreciate this vignette, however, I believe it demonstrates very little in terms of the character of the average US citizen. My retort to him was "It's easy to be a kind when nothing is at stake. Put money, sex or power into the equation and watch the knives come out." When it is so easy to be kind to a stranger, what does it prove?
If a person helps someone else out and stands nothing to gain (other than a warm fuzzy feeling) that's one thing. If a person helps someone out to their own detriment that's another. This is where my definition of true friendship comes from. A true friend is someone who will take it on the chin so that you don't have to take it in the ass. - Colorful? Yes, but very illustrative as well.
Many people I know are amazed that I have friends who go back to the 2nd grade. Actually, when I think about it, I'm amazed that I have friends who go back to the 2nd grade. Some people use the term friend colloquially - I'm really not sure what it means for them. Someone to hang out with? Maybe. I'm totally guessing. I just don't have many acquaintance/friends. My friends come in two varieties:
acquaintance/friends = garbage
true friends = like it
A friend of mine once told me that he knew that people in this country were basically good. He knew this because he has traveled extensively around the US and had to depend upon the kindness of strangers. What he saw were many people who were generous and giving. I understand and appreciate this vignette, however, I believe it demonstrates very little in terms of the character of the average US citizen. My retort to him was "It's easy to be a kind when nothing is at stake. Put money, sex or power into the equation and watch the knives come out." When it is so easy to be kind to a stranger, what does it prove?
If a person helps someone else out and stands nothing to gain (other than a warm fuzzy feeling) that's one thing. If a person helps someone out to their own detriment that's another. This is where my definition of true friendship comes from. A true friend is someone who will take it on the chin so that you don't have to take it in the ass. - Colorful? Yes, but very illustrative as well.
Many people I know are amazed that I have friends who go back to the 2nd grade. Actually, when I think about it, I'm amazed that I have friends who go back to the 2nd grade. Some people use the term friend colloquially - I'm really not sure what it means for them. Someone to hang out with? Maybe. I'm totally guessing. I just don't have many acquaintance/friends. My friends come in two varieties:
- True friends whom I depend on and who can depend upon me.
- People who I am feeling out to see if they are someone whom I would and could refer to as a true friend.
acquaintance/friends = garbage
true friends = like it
Labels:
authenticity,
friends,
word play
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Now or Never?... Never!
A rule of thumb that my dad gave me was - If someone needs you to "say yes today or this offer will be gone" then the answer is no.
Whenever I've followed this advice, I've come up on the winning side. You know who uses the now or never technique? Time share salespeople, used car salespeople, club salespeople, job recruiters, and the like. Fundamentally, the now or never technique is used because the people offering you something know that if you had the time to figure things out, you would realize nothing is as good as it seems and those "can't miss" offers are in fact - too good to be true.
If it's a job - then they don't really want you.
If it's a membership - then they are trying to sell you something you don't really need.
If it's a car - then they are trying to screw you.
If it's a timeshare - then find any way out of that office... threaten to call the police... RUN FORREST! RUN!
For a limited time only = crap.
Whenever I've followed this advice, I've come up on the winning side. You know who uses the now or never technique? Time share salespeople, used car salespeople, club salespeople, job recruiters, and the like. Fundamentally, the now or never technique is used because the people offering you something know that if you had the time to figure things out, you would realize nothing is as good as it seems and those "can't miss" offers are in fact - too good to be true.
If it's a job - then they don't really want you.
If it's a membership - then they are trying to sell you something you don't really need.
If it's a car - then they are trying to screw you.
If it's a timeshare - then find any way out of that office... threaten to call the police... RUN FORREST! RUN!
For a limited time only = crap.
Labels:
authenticity,
semantics
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Lick the lollipop of mediocrity and you'll suck for life!
Mediocrity in and of itself is a contradiction. Why? Because most people and organizations who accept and endorse mediocrity get results that are actually below mediocre.
This is not surprising at all for me. When faced with the combination of low expectations and an actual desire to not achieve excellence, motivation goes out the window.
How did this happen? Growing up, did our parents, teachers, and coaches say "Good enough for government work"? Not mine. Mine, and the role models of many other people I know would say things like "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well!" or "Effort beats talent when talent shows no effort." Many people still vociferously aspire to achieve greatness or to produce great results but their numbers across many disciplines appear to be in decline. Where did this desire to just get by come from?
Did it come from our cultures denigration of competition? Could be... We live in a society where "everyone's a winner", and "all children are special". This nonsensical crap gives people nothing to shoot for. Why try when all results are viewed as equal? Of course some self motivated souls still identify with the concept of doing anything less than your best is cheating yourself and that the reward is in the doing, but the implicit message of the role models of today must bear some responsibility.
Did it come from the disillusionment with the establishment? Could be... Our parents and our peers grew up where many people believed (erroneously) that their employers actually cared about them as people, that they were a part of some bigger vision and that a "job for life" was just that. When corporate corruption, treacherous leaders and over-eager downsizing became prevalent many from generation x and beyond have a different view of what the relationship between an employer and an employee should feel like.
Did it come from the complete destruction of accountability? Could be... My parents forced me to come clean no matter the implications. You were responsible for your actions and you accepted the consequences. How many role models in our society (all the way up to the president - and not just the last two administrations either) do their little verbal dances around any and all allegations no matter how trivial or how critical. Parents now actually lie and endorse lying to their children to avoid punishment or to gain reward that they are not entitled to.
In the end, I'm not sure where it comes from, but I can see where it leads to. The USA will more than likely continue its social, artistic and economic decline and as I said at the beginning, it won't stop at mediocre. Aiming for mediocre doesn't work. High expectations will more than likely get people's best effort out of them. Medium or low expectations often get the same thing - whatever they believe is the absolute minimum necessary.
Mediocrity = Crap.
This is not surprising at all for me. When faced with the combination of low expectations and an actual desire to not achieve excellence, motivation goes out the window.
How did this happen? Growing up, did our parents, teachers, and coaches say "Good enough for government work"? Not mine. Mine, and the role models of many other people I know would say things like "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well!" or "Effort beats talent when talent shows no effort." Many people still vociferously aspire to achieve greatness or to produce great results but their numbers across many disciplines appear to be in decline. Where did this desire to just get by come from?
Did it come from our cultures denigration of competition? Could be... We live in a society where "everyone's a winner", and "all children are special". This nonsensical crap gives people nothing to shoot for. Why try when all results are viewed as equal? Of course some self motivated souls still identify with the concept of doing anything less than your best is cheating yourself and that the reward is in the doing, but the implicit message of the role models of today must bear some responsibility.
Did it come from the disillusionment with the establishment? Could be... Our parents and our peers grew up where many people believed (erroneously) that their employers actually cared about them as people, that they were a part of some bigger vision and that a "job for life" was just that. When corporate corruption, treacherous leaders and over-eager downsizing became prevalent many from generation x and beyond have a different view of what the relationship between an employer and an employee should feel like.
Did it come from the complete destruction of accountability? Could be... My parents forced me to come clean no matter the implications. You were responsible for your actions and you accepted the consequences. How many role models in our society (all the way up to the president - and not just the last two administrations either) do their little verbal dances around any and all allegations no matter how trivial or how critical. Parents now actually lie and endorse lying to their children to avoid punishment or to gain reward that they are not entitled to.
In the end, I'm not sure where it comes from, but I can see where it leads to. The USA will more than likely continue its social, artistic and economic decline and as I said at the beginning, it won't stop at mediocre. Aiming for mediocre doesn't work. High expectations will more than likely get people's best effort out of them. Medium or low expectations often get the same thing - whatever they believe is the absolute minimum necessary.
Mediocrity = Crap.
Labels:
authenticity,
excellence,
organizational behavior,
passion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)