Situational goal adjustment is a real problem.
Don't set the clock when you're tired, set it when you are planning your day. Don't whittle away at your sales goals right after a serious rejection, set them when you're on a roll.
The discipline is in obeying the rule you set when you were in a different mood than you are now. That's what makes it a rule as opposed to a guideline.
…but it usually rhymes.
There's a tendency to confuse the next big thing with the one, it, the last big thing, the end of the line.
Communism, Populism, McCarthyism, Progressivism, Libertarianism…
Impressionism, Cubism, Modernism, Pop, Hyperrealism…
Sufiism, Norse Gods, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Christian Science…
Email, the web, web 2.0, mobile…
Newton, Einstein, string theory…
Newspaper, Radio, TV, the Internet…
Most of the time, we're dealing with a moment, a step in a trend. We fail when we fall in love and believe there is no next step.
How dare you.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Is this the best you can do?
I've written about the lizard brain and my friend Steve talks about the voice of the resistance.
It occurs to me, though, that most of us have to hassle with the heckler.
The heckler keeps a running critique going, amplifying its tone and anger as it goes on endlessly about all the things we shouldn't do, all the things we're not doing enough, and most of all, at our lack of entitlement to do much of anything new or important.
The heckler cannot be eliminated. It's been around since the beginning of our species, and we're hard wired to have it.
What can be done, though, is alter how the rest of the brain reacts or responds to the heckling.
If you engage with the heckler, if you qualify yourself, justify yourself or worst of all, rationalize yourself, the heckler will pounce, turning a small wedge into a giant hole. Like a standup comedian, it's almost impossible to outwit or shut down a dedicated heckler.
But there is a strategy that works. Acknowledge and move on.
When the heckler announces that you're incompetent, unqualified or hardly ready to step forward, think, "oh." And then proceed.
You give it no purchase. No opportunity to escalate. Each jibe is met with "noted."
Over time, the heckler gets quieter, because it just isn't worth the effort.
I will never miss a deadline
I will never leave a typo
I will never fail to warn you about a possible pitfall
I will never charge you more than the competition
I will never violate a confidence
I will never let you down
I will never be late for a meeting
There are lots of sorts of never you can deliver to a customer. You can't deliver all of them, of course. Picking your never and sticking with it is a fabulous way to position yourself.
…what's your posture?
Sometimes, we get close to finding out who we really are, what's the status of our situation, what's holding us back. When one of those conversations is going on, do you lean in, eager for more, or do you back off, afraid of what it will mean?
Do you go out of your way to learn about your habits, relationships and strengths? Or what's driving traffic to your website? Or why you didn't get that job?
When your organization has a chance to see itself as its customers do, do your leaders crowd around, trying to glean every insight they can about the story and your future, or do they prefer the status quo?
There are more mirrors available than ever. Sometimes, though, what's missing is the willingness to take a look.
Achievers in traditional organizations often say, "I want more authority." They mean that they want the power to make things happen, the mantle of authority that will allow them to get things done.
This is an industrial-era mindset. Management by authority is top-down, risk-averse, measurable and perfect for the org chart. It's essential in organizations that are stable, asset-based and adverse to risk.
There's a different approach, though, one that's based on responsibility instead of authority. "Anyone who takes responsibility for getting something done is welcome to ask for the authority to do it."
Ah, your bluff is called. And so is your boss's.
When the outcome of a conversation is in doubt, don't do it by email. And show up in person if you can.
The synchronicity of face to face conversation gives you the chance to change your tone in midstream. Ask questions. A great question is usually better than a good answer.
And don't forget–the value of a long pause is difficult to overstate.
Well, it might be.
Now that everyone, every brand, every organization and just about every person is in a race to build trust or an online following or a reputation, the question of working for free in exchange for exposure confronts us all.
Should you art direct a new ad for the local zoo, merely to build your cred? Should you give that speech for free, because people who pay speakers will be in the audience? Should you contribute code to the new kernel because people will see what you've done? Appear on a talk show, do a signing, call in to a radio show?
Perhaps.
Unsatisfying, but true.
Exposure, the right kind of exposure, is good practice, an honest contribution and yes, a chance to build credibility. Make it a habit, though, and instead of exposure, you've set yourself up a new standard– that you work for free.
Alas, one more decision you need to make.
Some designers (and authors) violently disagree with my case by case approach… they think the entire profession is cheapened by spec work and work for exposure–they argue that solidarity is the only response. I'll point out that these very designers belong to organizations that ask speakers to speak for free… for exposure.
If you're an unpublished author, you're certainly better off doing a lot of writing online (even entire novels given away) for free before you veer in the direction of doing it for a living. In fact, most people I know (in every field) don't do nearly enough work for free, they're not contributing enough to their community, not adding their expertise or their ideas to the conversation. As a result, they're either invisible or seen as not interested.
Punchline: just because it's free doesn't mean it's a good idea (or a bad one). It means you should think hard about how everyone benefits (including you). [PS a video from last year you might enjoy, complete with Y! tie.]
Often we consider an opportunity based on how easy it is. The problem with this analysis is that if it's easy, it's often not worth doing. It's easy to start a blog, but of course, starting a blog doesn't really deliver a lot of value. Posting 4,100 blog posts in a row, though, isn't easy. It's do-able, clearly do-able, and might just be worth it.
Successful organizations seek out the do-able. When Amazon went after the big bookstore chains, analysts ridiculed them for doing something insanely difficult. But it was clearly do-able. Persistence and talent and a bit of luck, sure, but do-able.
Sometimes we seek out things that are actually impossible. Building a search engine that's just like Google but better is impossible (if your goal is to dominate the market with it). It's fun to do impossible projects because then you don't have to worry about what happens if you succeed… you have a safety net, because you're dreaming the impossible dream.
Do-able, though, is within our reach. Ignore easy.
Why just?
How about, "amazingly, they've created a myth…"
I wrote about this five years ago (reprinted below). A myth is why this video is funny.
Isn't that the dream of any marketer? To create a myth?
Just under the wire, L. Frank Baum's heirs have no copyright protection on The Wizard of Oz. As a result, there are Broadway musicals, concordances, prequels, sequels and more. All of which creates a rich, emotional universe (and makes the copyrighted movie even more valuable).
Most of us remember the mythology stories they taught us in school (Zeus and Thor and the rest of the comic-like heroes.) Myths allow us to project ourselves into their stories, to imagine interactions that never took place, to take what's important to us and live it out through the myth.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of entertainment mythological brands. James Bond and Barbie, for example.
But it goes far behond that.
There's clearly a Google mythology and a Starbucks one was well. We feel differently about brands like these than we do about, say Maxwell House or Random House.
Why do Santa and Ronald McDonald have a mythology but not Dave at Wendy's or the Burger King?
Let's try the Wikipedia: Myths are narratives about divine or heroic beings, arranged in a coherent system, passed down traditionally, and linked to the spiritual or religious life of a community, endorsed by rulers or priests.
So, if I were trying to invent a mythic brand, I'd want to be sure that there was a story, not just a product or a pile of facts. That story would promise (and deliver) an heroic outcome. And there needs to be growth and mystery as well, so the user can fill in her own blanks. Endorsement by a respected ruler or priest helps as well.
The key word, I think, is spiritual. Mythological brands make a spiritual connection with the user, delivering something that we can't find on our own… or, at the very least, giving us a slate we can use to write our own spirituality on.
People use a Dell. They are an Apple.
This can happen accidentally, but it often occurs on purpose. A brand can be deliberately mythological, created to intentionally deliver the benefits of myth. Casinos in Las Vegas have been trying to do this for decades (and usually failing). But talk to a Vegas cab driver about Steve Wynn and you can see that it's been done at least once.
There's a mythology about Digg and about Wikipedia, but not about about.com. The mysterious nature of rankings and scores and community ensures that, combined with the fact that the first two have public figures at the helm… heroes.
It's easy to confuse publicity with mythology, but it doesn't work that way… there's no Zune mythology, for example. It's also easy to assume that mythology will guarantee financial success, but it didn't work for General Magic, a company which successfully leveraged the heroic reputations of its founders, created a very hot IPO but failed to match the needs of the larger market.
It did, on the other hand, work for Andersen's, an ice cream stand in Buffalo (!?) that has a line every single day, even in January.
Hard to explain, difficult to bottle, probably worth the effort to pursue.
