Does a stressful event start a cascade that ends up making even you more stressed?
If an authority figure corrects your behavior, does the intervention lead you to push back and make the behavior worse?
Does a failure set you on a path to more failure?
These questions seem philosophical or even paradoxical, but in fact I think they get to the heart of why some people succeed and others don't. We can choose to create cycles that move us up or endure cycles that drag us down.
A cop hassles a teenager who is acting out. The kid escalates. The cop escalates. Someone gets shot.
A sales call is going poorly because the prospect doesn't perceive the salesperson is confident. She responds by becoming even less confident. No sale.
A mistake is made. The stakes go up. Rattled, another mistake is made, and then again, until failure occurs…
James Bond is a hero because the tougher the world got, the cooler he got. Symphony conductors don't endure the pressure of a performance, they thrive on it.
If being a little behind creates self-pressure that leads to stress and then errors, it's no wonder you frequently end up a lot behind. If the way you manage your brand inevitably leads to a ceaseless race to the bottom, it's no wonder that you're struggling. A small bump gets magnified and repeated until it overwhelms.
Customer service falls apart when mutual escalation or non-understanding sets in. Management falls apart when power struggles or miscommunication escalate. Education falls apart when students respond to negative tracking by giving up.
Someone who gets better whenever he fails will always outperform someone who responds to failure by getting worse. This isn't something in your DNA, it's something you can learn or unlearn.
The appropriate response is not to try harder, to bear down and grind it out. The response that works is to understand the nature of the cycle and to change it from the start. You must not fight the cycle, you must transform it into a different cycle altogether. It's a lot of work, but less work than failing.
When the lizard pushes you to recoil in fear, that's your cue to embrace the trembling fear and do precisely the opposite of what it demands. This won't work the first time or even the tenth, but it's the path to an upcycle, one where each negative input leads to more productivity, not less.
November 18, 2010
We're surrounded by people who are busy getting their ducks in a row, waiting for just the right moment…
Getting your ducks in a row is a fine thing to do. But deciding what you are you going to do with that duck is a far more important issue.
November 17, 2010
It doesn't really matter if we like you.
It matters if we like your work.
[Surprisingly, the converse of this rule also works].
Sometimes it seems as though people who are really concerned about one would be better off focusing on the other.
The paradox of an instant, worldwide, connected marketplace for all goods and services:
All that succeeds is the unreasonable.
You can get my attention if your product is unreasonably well designed, if your preparation is unreasonably over the top, if your customer service is unreasonably attentive and generous and honest. You can earn my business or my recommendation if the build quality is unreasonable for the intended use, if the pricing is unreasonably low or if the experience is unreasonably over-the-top irresistible given the competition.
Want to get into a famous college? You'll need to have unreasonably high grades, impossibly positive recommendations and yes, a life that's balanced. That's totally unreasonable.
The market now expects and demands an unreasonable effort and investment on your part. You don't have to like it for it to be true.
In fact, unreasonable is the new reasonable.
November 16, 2010
We care a lot about finding people who are brilliant, who get things done, who make a difference. We care a lot about finding a playwright with talent, a surgeon who can cure us, a programmer who can get the thing to work.
Along the way, many of the linchpins who are able to do work like this develop affectations, quirks and even obnoxious qualities. They might demand an over-equipped dressing room or a private jet or merely be a jerk in meetings (or show up late, which is almost as bad).
We often put up with this, because, after all, they're superstars, right?
Somewhere along the way, we confused the signals with the work. Now there are people who start with the bad behavior and the affectations, hoping that it will be seen as a sign of insight and talent. And they often get away with it. "Who's that?" we wonder… "I don't know, but they must be good at what they do, because why else would we put up with them?" It's a great plan when it works, but I don't think it's a strategy to be counted on.
The key to getting a reputation for being brilliant is actually being brilliant, not just acting like you are.
November 15, 2010
The term 'crunchy granola' has been shortened to crunchy, a term used to describe people who willingly alter their lifestyle to make less of an impact on the environment. It's crunchy to give up your car for a bike, or to use mesh companies or to become vegan.
I wonder what happens if we broaden the term to describe someone who changes their lifestyle for a job or a brand or a passion? "Eric is getting really crunchy about his job at Microsoft… he even gave up his iPad." Or perhaps, "Cheryl is crunchy about Vuitton… it's all she wears."
Does success for you depend on creating crunchiness among your customers and fans?
November 14, 2010
Is there a schism between the folks who love color tattoos and those that like black & white ones? Or the fans of the original Star Trek who hate the folks who like the far inferior newer Star Trek models?
Freud noticed it too.
Here's why it happens:
First, you have to care. When people care about a brand or a cause or an idea, it's likely that have other things in common. And the caring causes them to invest attention. Once they've done that, they can't help but notice that others don't see things the way they do. We ignore the great unwashed and reserve our disdain for those like us, that care like us, but don't see things as we do.
The really good news is that the tribe cares. If you don't have that, you've got nothing of value. In fact, the squabbling among people who care is the first sign you're on to something. [HT to Joel].
November 13, 2010
There are at least three reasons why someone might pay five or ten or a hundred times more to see a concert than the CD costs (not to mention the value difference: you can listen to the download again and again but the live gig is gone forever):
- There are people around you, fellow travelers, magnetic energy, shared joy.
- Something might go wrong. The artist is like a tightrope walker, taking big chances and the drama it creates is engrossing.
- You might be surprised. Something new and wonderful might happen and it might jar you awake.
And yet, people in the 'live' business–restaurants, people doing presentations, the concierge at the hotel–often work hard to avoid getting anywhere near any of the three.
The next frontier in personal coaching. No need to spend time describing your problem.
I can't decide which is sillier–the obviously fake photo (She used to be fat? Those are her jeans?) or the juxtaposition of the banner with the wall.
And this is the secret of lowering your handicap. The box says the bar on the right is for the back nine. My question is: what if you eat them in the wrong order?
November 12, 2010
Architects don't manufacture nails, assemble windows or chop down trees. Instead, they take existing components and assemble them in interesting and important ways.
It used to be that if you wanted to build an organization, you had to be prepared to do a lot of manufacturing and assembly–of something. My first internet company had 60 or 70 people at its peak… and today, you could run the same organization with six people. The rest? They were busy building an infrastructure that now exists. Restaurants used to be built by chefs. Now, more than ever, they're built by impresarios who know how to tie together real estate, promotion, service and chefs into a package that consumers want to buy. The difficult part isn't installing the stove, the difficult (and scarce) part is telling a story.
I'm talking about intentionally building a structure and a strategy and a position, not focusing your energy on the mechanics, because mechanics alone are insufficient. Just as you can't build a class A office building with nothing but a skilled carpenter, you can't build a business for the ages that merely puts widgets into boxes.
My friend Jerry calls these people corporate chiropractors. They don't do surgery, they realign and recognize what's out of place.
Organizational architects know how to find suppliers, use the cloud (of people, of data, of resources), identify freelancers, tie together disparate resources and weave them into a business that scales. You either need to become one or hire one.
The organizations that matter are busy being run by people who figure out what to do next.
