Well I finally figured it out!
The URL of my new blog is now: www.adamschorr.com
I look forward to sharing my thoughts and engaging in discussion with you over there. I do not intend to post anymore on this site.
Best,
Adam
Monday, December 14, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
New blog address
Folks:
If you've been reading my blog, first of all thank you! I hope you enjoy it.
Now the news: I am switching to a new blogging platform (URL is at the bottom of this post). I don't really have a clue what I'm doing but the new platform will allow for a more professional and high quality look and feel. It will also allow me to edit and add features more easily.
Now because I am learning this as I go, I'm not sure if/how it will work. If you've been subscribing via email or RSS, I hope you will continue to get my posts sent to you. If you don't, there are tools on the new blog that will allow you to sign up again. (And hopefully they will work!)
And now just because I've criticized the whole new look without new benefits marketing tactic, let me explain a bit more why I'm doing this and why I'm not a hypocrite for it :)
New packaging on potato chips does not change the functional benefit I receive from my chips. They taste the same. They clog my arteries the same... But the look and feel of a blog directly impacts reader experience. I want people who read my blog to get a certain experience that is consistent with the way I would like to present myself and makes their reading more enjoyable. I felt that my current blog made that difficult for me. I also want to be able to add more features without having to find workarounds for everything.
Anyway, I want to thank you again for your attention and hope that you enjoy the new blog. Please share any feedback with me. This is very much a work in progress. I will be adding new features, changing the color scheme and generally messing around with it for a while until I and you are happy with it.
Check it out at: www.adamschorr.com/wordpress.
Oh and BTW, I will probably change the URL to just www.adamschorr.com once I figure out how :)
If you've been reading my blog, first of all thank you! I hope you enjoy it.
Now the news: I am switching to a new blogging platform (URL is at the bottom of this post). I don't really have a clue what I'm doing but the new platform will allow for a more professional and high quality look and feel. It will also allow me to edit and add features more easily.
Now because I am learning this as I go, I'm not sure if/how it will work. If you've been subscribing via email or RSS, I hope you will continue to get my posts sent to you. If you don't, there are tools on the new blog that will allow you to sign up again. (And hopefully they will work!)
And now just because I've criticized the whole new look without new benefits marketing tactic, let me explain a bit more why I'm doing this and why I'm not a hypocrite for it :)
New packaging on potato chips does not change the functional benefit I receive from my chips. They taste the same. They clog my arteries the same... But the look and feel of a blog directly impacts reader experience. I want people who read my blog to get a certain experience that is consistent with the way I would like to present myself and makes their reading more enjoyable. I felt that my current blog made that difficult for me. I also want to be able to add more features without having to find workarounds for everything.
Anyway, I want to thank you again for your attention and hope that you enjoy the new blog. Please share any feedback with me. This is very much a work in progress. I will be adding new features, changing the color scheme and generally messing around with it for a while until I and you are happy with it.
Check it out at: www.adamschorr.com/wordpress.
Oh and BTW, I will probably change the URL to just www.adamschorr.com once I figure out how :)
Monday, December 7, 2009
Network not netjerk
I just got an email from a guy I knew years ago. I have had zero contact with this person in more than two years and possibly as much as six. And even when we had contact, we were not close. We socialized a handful of times a year and he was friends with my brother in law. Between the time I last had contact with him and now, I have been in the process of getting divorced. It's been nearly two years since that process started. And not a peep from this guy. Well, that's OK. We weren't close anyway.
But now he sends me an email. The subject line of his email is: "q for u".
And the text of his email is:
"Hi Adam,
I’ve got a q for you that is possibly business-related, or maybe you’ll have some advice - when is a good time to talk, and what is your number?
Thanks,
XXXXXX"
Note how unfriendly he is. Note how he does not acknowledge that we have not been in contact for years. Note how he has no comment on the fact that I'm getting divorced. And note how he simply assumes I will give him my time.
Well, my inclination is to help. That's a natural human inclination. But this is just bad behavior. And I'm not going to reward bad behavior. The polite thing for him to do would have been to say a proper hello, acknowledge my life circumstances in some way and ask if he could get a few minutes of my time.
I was going to simply ignore his email but why should I be the guy that ignores emails? Instead, I sent him the following email which is a bit testy but I think he deserved it:
"No "Hi, how are you? It's been a few years and I hope things are well for you." No "Hey, I hear you've been going through a divorce. I hope you're doing well."
Really?!
Do you typically find that method of networking to be effective? If so, I recommend you send your question to those people with whom that approach works. I generally prefer a bit of humanity with my networking."
And just a few minutes later he responded with:
"Sorry, u r right - jerky of me. Am using a pda and just went quickly. Lesson learned."
Yes, it was jerky of him. It just didn't meet the basic standards of human decency. Now could a good friend send me an email like that? Absolutely! That good friend would have built a reservoir of good will with me. I would know that he or she would be there for me. They would know I'm there for them. That's a big part of what friendship is. But if you're not a good friend then you have to be a bit more polite. Be human.
If you walked through my front door, how would you act? Would you just barge in and start demanding things? Or would you announce yourself, be nice and then make your request only after having (re) established the relational right to do so? Look. I may not be able to call the cops on you for spamming me the way I can if you walk into my home without permission. But just because you can send me an email and just because it is legal to send me an email does not mean it is wise to send me an email. And if you're going to send one, think about what you should say. Yes, it is very easy to hit send. But it is just as easy for me to hit delete.
Can this guy repair things with me? Probably. But now it will take more effort than had he simply taken an extra minute to be friendly. Now instead of just overcoming years of a dormant relationship, he has to overcome years of that dormancy plus today's jerkiness.
Do you think it was worth it for him?
But now he sends me an email. The subject line of his email is: "q for u".
And the text of his email is:
"Hi Adam,
I’ve got a q for you that is possibly business-related, or maybe you’ll have some advice - when is a good time to talk, and what is your number?
Thanks,
XXXXXX"
Note how unfriendly he is. Note how he does not acknowledge that we have not been in contact for years. Note how he has no comment on the fact that I'm getting divorced. And note how he simply assumes I will give him my time.
Well, my inclination is to help. That's a natural human inclination. But this is just bad behavior. And I'm not going to reward bad behavior. The polite thing for him to do would have been to say a proper hello, acknowledge my life circumstances in some way and ask if he could get a few minutes of my time.
I was going to simply ignore his email but why should I be the guy that ignores emails? Instead, I sent him the following email which is a bit testy but I think he deserved it:
"No "Hi, how are you? It's been a few years and I hope things are well for you." No "Hey, I hear you've been going through a divorce. I hope you're doing well."
Really?!
Do you typically find that method of networking to be effective? If so, I recommend you send your question to those people with whom that approach works. I generally prefer a bit of humanity with my networking."
And just a few minutes later he responded with:
"Sorry, u r right - jerky of me. Am using a pda and just went quickly. Lesson learned."
Yes, it was jerky of him. It just didn't meet the basic standards of human decency. Now could a good friend send me an email like that? Absolutely! That good friend would have built a reservoir of good will with me. I would know that he or she would be there for me. They would know I'm there for them. That's a big part of what friendship is. But if you're not a good friend then you have to be a bit more polite. Be human.
If you walked through my front door, how would you act? Would you just barge in and start demanding things? Or would you announce yourself, be nice and then make your request only after having (re) established the relational right to do so? Look. I may not be able to call the cops on you for spamming me the way I can if you walk into my home without permission. But just because you can send me an email and just because it is legal to send me an email does not mean it is wise to send me an email. And if you're going to send one, think about what you should say. Yes, it is very easy to hit send. But it is just as easy for me to hit delete.
Can this guy repair things with me? Probably. But now it will take more effort than had he simply taken an extra minute to be friendly. Now instead of just overcoming years of a dormant relationship, he has to overcome years of that dormancy plus today's jerkiness.
Do you think it was worth it for him?
Don't scratch that itch
Years ago when I was a kid practicing martial arts I remember one of my teachers telling me, as I interrupted a technique to scratch my leg, that it was important I stay focused on what I was doing and that if I focused properly then I would not feel my leg itch at all. That it was in the power of my mind to feel or not feel the itch.
Last week a dear friend told me about something she had learned in yoga. It was all about not scratching an itch. And it was meant to include physical itches but also metaphorical itches. The point was to reject the reflex to scratch the itch and make it go away and, instead, to live with it and see what came of it.
I thought this was very interesting and it holds some lessons for those of us that seek innovation.
So let's think about itches for a minute. Our bodies and minds throw all sorts of itches our way. Hunger is an itch to eat. Sexual desire is an itch. Parents often have an itch to see their kids when they are away. (Or not to see them when they are!) We have itches to study a particular topic or visit a certain place. And we have itches to avoid things as well. For every itch we get that tells us to go do something, there can be a corresponding itch to not do something. There is a hunger itch, but there is also an itch not to eat if you have eaten too much. You might really not like someone and get an itch whenever you're in their presence to get away as fast as possible. Maybe you don't like being in crowds and you get an itch to find open space...
It occurs to me that these itches are mechanisms of stasis. They are designed to maintain you the way you are. Hunger is your body telling you that in order to keep going, you need fuel. Sexual desire tells you that you need release because if you don't get it, you will find yourself in an uncomfortable state. All of our itches are signals from inside telling us that something is not going according to plan and that we need to adjust our course to stay on track.
We also have various variety-seeking mechanisms. People cannot eat the same things, see the same things, do the same things day in and day out without getting bored. We crave variety and novelty. Now I would argue that these variety-seeking mechanisms are also mechanisms of stasis. Because we have been constructed to require variety and novelty, when we don't get them, we get an itch. Our bodies and minds tell us that if we don't get some new input, we will find ourselves in an uncomfortable state. Variety-seeking is really just a way to maintain. It's that old expression about running just to stay in place.
Now think about what we do when we get an itch. That's right, just shout it out when you know it. Yes! We scratch the itch. As quickly as we can. We are good little soldiers and follow the instructions from inside that tell us to get back on track right away.
That's wonderful if maintaining ourselves is our goal. But it's not so good if we want to innovate. Stasis is the enemy of innovation. Stasis is about keeping everything constant. It's about the safety of the familiar. Old routines. Old habits. Changing only enough to maintain. Stasis does not help you see wonderful new vistas or create inspiring new ideas.
The solution is to not scratch the itch. Let it ride a bit. See what frame of mind it puts you in. Find some new experiences. These will be uncomfortable. Certainly at first. Maybe forever. If they turn out to have negative consequences then scratch the itch and make it go away. But some of them may open you up to new ways of thinking and feeling. You may find yourself changed for the better by allowing yourself an opportunity to see what lies just beyond the itch.
Last week a dear friend told me about something she had learned in yoga. It was all about not scratching an itch. And it was meant to include physical itches but also metaphorical itches. The point was to reject the reflex to scratch the itch and make it go away and, instead, to live with it and see what came of it.
I thought this was very interesting and it holds some lessons for those of us that seek innovation.
So let's think about itches for a minute. Our bodies and minds throw all sorts of itches our way. Hunger is an itch to eat. Sexual desire is an itch. Parents often have an itch to see their kids when they are away. (Or not to see them when they are!) We have itches to study a particular topic or visit a certain place. And we have itches to avoid things as well. For every itch we get that tells us to go do something, there can be a corresponding itch to not do something. There is a hunger itch, but there is also an itch not to eat if you have eaten too much. You might really not like someone and get an itch whenever you're in their presence to get away as fast as possible. Maybe you don't like being in crowds and you get an itch to find open space...
It occurs to me that these itches are mechanisms of stasis. They are designed to maintain you the way you are. Hunger is your body telling you that in order to keep going, you need fuel. Sexual desire tells you that you need release because if you don't get it, you will find yourself in an uncomfortable state. All of our itches are signals from inside telling us that something is not going according to plan and that we need to adjust our course to stay on track.
We also have various variety-seeking mechanisms. People cannot eat the same things, see the same things, do the same things day in and day out without getting bored. We crave variety and novelty. Now I would argue that these variety-seeking mechanisms are also mechanisms of stasis. Because we have been constructed to require variety and novelty, when we don't get them, we get an itch. Our bodies and minds tell us that if we don't get some new input, we will find ourselves in an uncomfortable state. Variety-seeking is really just a way to maintain. It's that old expression about running just to stay in place.
Now think about what we do when we get an itch. That's right, just shout it out when you know it. Yes! We scratch the itch. As quickly as we can. We are good little soldiers and follow the instructions from inside that tell us to get back on track right away.
That's wonderful if maintaining ourselves is our goal. But it's not so good if we want to innovate. Stasis is the enemy of innovation. Stasis is about keeping everything constant. It's about the safety of the familiar. Old routines. Old habits. Changing only enough to maintain. Stasis does not help you see wonderful new vistas or create inspiring new ideas.
The solution is to not scratch the itch. Let it ride a bit. See what frame of mind it puts you in. Find some new experiences. These will be uncomfortable. Certainly at first. Maybe forever. If they turn out to have negative consequences then scratch the itch and make it go away. But some of them may open you up to new ways of thinking and feeling. You may find yourself changed for the better by allowing yourself an opportunity to see what lies just beyond the itch.
Monday, November 23, 2009
More kudos to NB Web Express
I have written about these guys before. They are just amazing.
I recently redeemed a very generous coupon they sent me. I bought another pair of their 1011 running shoes. I love these shoes. They are unbelievably comfortable. Anyway, I just got an email from them. It's a really nice, warm human email. The text is below. My one minor complaint is that they call me by my first and last name. It sounds a little weird. But otherwise, I really like getting emails from them.
I buy my shoes at Nordstrom. I buy my sneakers at NB Web Express. Nobody else has a chance to sell me shoes or sneakers. I am totally loyal to these guys.
So here's their email:
Dear Adam Schorr,
I wanted to follow up regarding your recent purchase from us.
I sincerely hope you are enjoying the comfort and fit of your
New Balance gear.
Understanding you have many choices, we truly appreciate your
business. NB Web Express is committed to earning your loyal
patronage by surpassing your expectations and being open to
suggestions for improvement.
You can contact us directly via email or by calling
1-800-595-9138(Toll Free) with any comments or suggestions.
We welcome your feedback!
Sincerely,
Kerstin B.
Customer Care Specialist
NBwebexpress.com
(800) 595-9138
I recently redeemed a very generous coupon they sent me. I bought another pair of their 1011 running shoes. I love these shoes. They are unbelievably comfortable. Anyway, I just got an email from them. It's a really nice, warm human email. The text is below. My one minor complaint is that they call me by my first and last name. It sounds a little weird. But otherwise, I really like getting emails from them.
I buy my shoes at Nordstrom. I buy my sneakers at NB Web Express. Nobody else has a chance to sell me shoes or sneakers. I am totally loyal to these guys.
So here's their email:
Dear Adam Schorr,
I wanted to follow up regarding your recent purchase from us.
I sincerely hope you are enjoying the comfort and fit of your
New Balance gear.
Understanding you have many choices, we truly appreciate your
business. NB Web Express is committed to earning your loyal
patronage by surpassing your expectations and being open to
suggestions for improvement.
You can contact us directly via email or by calling
1-800-595-9138(Toll Free) with any comments or suggestions.
We welcome your feedback!
Sincerely,
Kerstin B.
Customer Care Specialist
NBwebexpress.com
(800) 595-9138
Friday, November 20, 2009
Everything you know is wrong
There. Feel better? I bet you do.
Because I know that you so badly want to change. You want to improve. You want to try new things. And you still think the word "innovation" is cool and if you can put it on your resume you know you'll get invited to cool parties.
But there's this really big problem. The problem is that you know so much. You're an expert in your field. You've seen it all and you know what works and what does not work. So if you're going to change, improve, innovate and hobnob with the A-listers, you've got to find something that fits in with what you know to be true.
And that is hard. Honestly, it's damn near impossible. Because if there was something new and better out there that fit with what you know, you'd probably already have it wouldn't you?
So what is a would-be innovator to do?
Well, I'll tell you. Accept that everything you know is wrong. What you learned in school. Wrong! Your accumulated professional wisdom. Wrong! Your most sacred beliefs. Wrong! All of it is wrong. And if it isn't wrong this very minute, it'll be wrong...now!
The world is not flat. The sun does not revolve around the earth. Infants are not born as tabula rasa. Our sensory perception is not driven by eidola (c'mon, look it up). The most sacred beliefs of the best minds throughout history have been shown to be wrong by the advance of wisdom and knowledge. Are you really certain that you're smarter than them all? That human knowledge has now reached its apex and that we now know all there is to know? Really?
Look. There are very few certainties in life. But here are two for which there is so much evidence that only the delusional could possibly deny them.
1) Future generations will laugh at your naivete. They will know how you were wrong. And the generations after them will do the same.
2) Your kids will laugh like crazy at the clothing you wore when you were young and most assuredly at that goofy mustache you thought made you look so cool.
But this is all good news. Well, not so much the part about your kids laughing at you. That can sting a bit. I kid you not. But the other part is good news. Because you already know the end of this movie. The end is that you were wrong.
Stop for a moment to take in the full measure of this. You are wrong. How wonderfully liberating it is to be wrong. You do not have to hold onto your orthodoxies as if they are the last piece of flotsam saving you from certain death in the stormy seas. You are not in possession of a jewel so precious that you must guard it with your very life from the hordes of envious pillagers.
Rather, what you've got now is OK. It's good enough. It's working pretty well. Maybe well enough to hang onto for a bit longer. But it is wrong. And you are free to move on. To challenge your own orthodoxies. Even to toss them away with a soupcon of cavalierness.
Go ahead. Give it a try. You know you want to.
Because I know that you so badly want to change. You want to improve. You want to try new things. And you still think the word "innovation" is cool and if you can put it on your resume you know you'll get invited to cool parties.
But there's this really big problem. The problem is that you know so much. You're an expert in your field. You've seen it all and you know what works and what does not work. So if you're going to change, improve, innovate and hobnob with the A-listers, you've got to find something that fits in with what you know to be true.
And that is hard. Honestly, it's damn near impossible. Because if there was something new and better out there that fit with what you know, you'd probably already have it wouldn't you?
So what is a would-be innovator to do?
Well, I'll tell you. Accept that everything you know is wrong. What you learned in school. Wrong! Your accumulated professional wisdom. Wrong! Your most sacred beliefs. Wrong! All of it is wrong. And if it isn't wrong this very minute, it'll be wrong...now!
The world is not flat. The sun does not revolve around the earth. Infants are not born as tabula rasa. Our sensory perception is not driven by eidola (c'mon, look it up). The most sacred beliefs of the best minds throughout history have been shown to be wrong by the advance of wisdom and knowledge. Are you really certain that you're smarter than them all? That human knowledge has now reached its apex and that we now know all there is to know? Really?
Look. There are very few certainties in life. But here are two for which there is so much evidence that only the delusional could possibly deny them.
1) Future generations will laugh at your naivete. They will know how you were wrong. And the generations after them will do the same.
2) Your kids will laugh like crazy at the clothing you wore when you were young and most assuredly at that goofy mustache you thought made you look so cool.
But this is all good news. Well, not so much the part about your kids laughing at you. That can sting a bit. I kid you not. But the other part is good news. Because you already know the end of this movie. The end is that you were wrong.
Stop for a moment to take in the full measure of this. You are wrong. How wonderfully liberating it is to be wrong. You do not have to hold onto your orthodoxies as if they are the last piece of flotsam saving you from certain death in the stormy seas. You are not in possession of a jewel so precious that you must guard it with your very life from the hordes of envious pillagers.
Rather, what you've got now is OK. It's good enough. It's working pretty well. Maybe well enough to hang onto for a bit longer. But it is wrong. And you are free to move on. To challenge your own orthodoxies. Even to toss them away with a soupcon of cavalierness.
Go ahead. Give it a try. You know you want to.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Screw you consumer!
That's what I see and hear when I look at packaging that says "New look. Same great flavor."
What that says to me is: "I spent hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to improve this product you bought but instead of making it better for you, I made it better for me."
In a few rare instances, packaging is updated because consumers that want to find the product simply cannot amidst the clutter of a typical retail shelf. (BTW, I'm referring to packaging graphics not the structure itself.) But most of the time, the packaging is updated so it practically screams at you from the shelf. Marketers will say things like "we've got to make sure the package has stopping power" or "make the package intrusive."
Well guess what? I don't want to be stopped. And I do not want to be intruded on.
When you play with packaging this way, you've resorted to gimmickry. You're not calling on the rational faculties of a consumer to try and assist in the purchase decision. Instead, you're preying on the irrational, the built in little cognitive and cultural biases we have that, generally, help us make better decisions but often lead us astray.
I have a better idea. Try this new line on your packaging: "Same old look. New improved taste." Make the damn chips taste better. Make the soda taste better. Make your product work better. Instead of trying to trick me with flashiness, convince me with true product benefits.
Oh, and consumers. I have a message for you too. See here's the thing. As one of my favorite people pointed out, these gimmicks work. Marketers do this because notwithstanding their cynicism and lack of respect for the consumer, these tactics do work. You know why? Because you allow yourself to be seduced by shiny objects rather than demanding better products. When you stop letting yourself be taken advantage of, when you start demanding from manufacturers that they truly respect you, then you will start seeing better tasting chips.
Until then, enjoy the new bag.
What that says to me is: "I spent hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to improve this product you bought but instead of making it better for you, I made it better for me."
In a few rare instances, packaging is updated because consumers that want to find the product simply cannot amidst the clutter of a typical retail shelf. (BTW, I'm referring to packaging graphics not the structure itself.) But most of the time, the packaging is updated so it practically screams at you from the shelf. Marketers will say things like "we've got to make sure the package has stopping power" or "make the package intrusive."
Well guess what? I don't want to be stopped. And I do not want to be intruded on.
When you play with packaging this way, you've resorted to gimmickry. You're not calling on the rational faculties of a consumer to try and assist in the purchase decision. Instead, you're preying on the irrational, the built in little cognitive and cultural biases we have that, generally, help us make better decisions but often lead us astray.
I have a better idea. Try this new line on your packaging: "Same old look. New improved taste." Make the damn chips taste better. Make the soda taste better. Make your product work better. Instead of trying to trick me with flashiness, convince me with true product benefits.
Oh, and consumers. I have a message for you too. See here's the thing. As one of my favorite people pointed out, these gimmicks work. Marketers do this because notwithstanding their cynicism and lack of respect for the consumer, these tactics do work. You know why? Because you allow yourself to be seduced by shiny objects rather than demanding better products. When you stop letting yourself be taken advantage of, when you start demanding from manufacturers that they truly respect you, then you will start seeing better tasting chips.
Until then, enjoy the new bag.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Why I love innovation
Innovation produces many economic benefits. It generates many new products and creature comforts. On those merits alone it ought to be greatly valued.
But the truth is that although I enjoy these benefits of innovation, they are not the primary cause of my passion for innovation.
The reason I care so much about innovation is that innovation reflects the natural state of the human soul. (I'm using "innovation" as a verb here.) The human soul seeks to understand. It seeks to improve the world based on that understanding. It craves beauty, excellence, dignity and nobility. It pursues truth.
When people are stifled in their attempts to express the natural desire of their souls, they become depressed in a way. You can see them in their robotic drone-like state in many organizations. They become listless. They go through the motions but there is no real passion behind what they do. As Thoreau said "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." These people are more predictable. They are more easily managed. But they are barely human.
Setting up organizations to allow, or even encourage, people to pursue the natural desires of their souls leads to many salutary benefits. Most immediately, it breathes life and passion back into the quietly desperate. These newly energized people are happy. Not in some superficial sense of having the material comforts they need and a lack of external pressure. They are truly happy in the profoundest sense of the term. They are fully engaged. They are maximally productive. They might not be producing exactly what you wanted them to produce but, in the aggregate, they best contribute to human progress and towards the creation, development and maintenance of the most beautiful, noble, excellent and dignified world we can possibly have.
Oh yeah, they also turn out some really cool products and generate all that economic activity that makes the bean-counters happy.
But the truth is that although I enjoy these benefits of innovation, they are not the primary cause of my passion for innovation.
The reason I care so much about innovation is that innovation reflects the natural state of the human soul. (I'm using "innovation" as a verb here.) The human soul seeks to understand. It seeks to improve the world based on that understanding. It craves beauty, excellence, dignity and nobility. It pursues truth.
When people are stifled in their attempts to express the natural desire of their souls, they become depressed in a way. You can see them in their robotic drone-like state in many organizations. They become listless. They go through the motions but there is no real passion behind what they do. As Thoreau said "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." These people are more predictable. They are more easily managed. But they are barely human.
Setting up organizations to allow, or even encourage, people to pursue the natural desires of their souls leads to many salutary benefits. Most immediately, it breathes life and passion back into the quietly desperate. These newly energized people are happy. Not in some superficial sense of having the material comforts they need and a lack of external pressure. They are truly happy in the profoundest sense of the term. They are fully engaged. They are maximally productive. They might not be producing exactly what you wanted them to produce but, in the aggregate, they best contribute to human progress and towards the creation, development and maintenance of the most beautiful, noble, excellent and dignified world we can possibly have.
Oh yeah, they also turn out some really cool products and generate all that economic activity that makes the bean-counters happy.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
True in the soil vs. True in the heart
Some things are true because they just are. They are theoretically sound or necessary such as the proposition that 2+2=4. Or they have been shown to be true through rigorous empirical study. These things are true whether you like them or not. They are true regardless of your personal, political or sexual agenda. They are true whether you put on your socks before your shoes or you follow the sock-shoe, sock-shoe approach.
But there are other truths. There are things that are true because you believe they are. These truths start out as the glint in the soul of one individual. That glint grows and becomes a passion. Almost an obsession. And that person through sheer force of will, inspires others to believe. When that happens, this individual has created a movement. And there is very little a passionate movement cannot achieve.
Soil truths are fine. One ignores them at one's own peril. It is important to educate ourselves on these truths.
But let's not ignore heart truths. This is where the magic happens.
But there are other truths. There are things that are true because you believe they are. These truths start out as the glint in the soul of one individual. That glint grows and becomes a passion. Almost an obsession. And that person through sheer force of will, inspires others to believe. When that happens, this individual has created a movement. And there is very little a passionate movement cannot achieve.
Soil truths are fine. One ignores them at one's own peril. It is important to educate ourselves on these truths.
But let's not ignore heart truths. This is where the magic happens.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
On hetero vs. homogeneity
How alike should the members of your organization be? This is a really tough question. On one hand, we value diversity don't we? Haven't we all been told that diversity does all sorts of wonderful things for an organization? It brings together different experiences, ideas, style of thinking, etc. so that you not only get the very best of the lot but you go beyond and achieve that magical 1+1=3.
Yet we also know that there needs to be some commonality amongst members of a group. We all know, for instance, that common values are important. I just saw a great presentation from Netflix on their corporate culture and how they insure that their employees truly share their values.
So how heterogenous or homogenous should we be? Well let's start with the ends of that spectrum.
Pure heterogeneity would mean that there is complete and total difference. No two people within the organization are alike in any way. There are no shared values, beliefs or ideas. There are no shared experiences. Heck, no two people even speak the same language! Clearly that cannot work.
Pure homogeneity would mean that everyone is completely alike. There would be absolutely no diversity whatsoever. Obviously this doesn't work either.
I think the received wisdom is true. Heterogeneity and homogeneity are both needed.
Heterogeneity is needed because much as in biology, social and intellectual diversity lead to the most favorable outcomes over the long term. Differences of opinion, of thinking styles, of experiences - when managed properly - do lead to better outcomes because the organization has a richer database from which to pull its answers. Heterogeneity is valuable because it maximizes your chances that you will survive over the long term by insuring that people from within challenge your thinking so that you don't have to be challenged as much by people from the outside. Magic and brilliance are most likely to come from an unexpected clash of ideas - the sort of clash that requires diversity.
Homogeneity is needed because without it, there is no organization. Homogeneity is the glue that holds together what would otherwise be a mass of individuals. Organizational logic allows for e pluribus unum - out of many, one.
So how much do you need of each?
I would propose two principles though I believe I have not yet thought this issue through sufficiently and would welcome your thoughts:
1) When the nature of your output is inherently creative and novel then you should favor heterogeneity over homogeneity. Organizations that are constantly solving new problems for which there is no existing template should value heterogeneity more. This could include the arts, some kinds of marketing, technology... More physical professions that literally require people to be pulling in the same direction probably should value homogeneity more. Again, I've already pointed out that there must be a balance. I'm just trying to lay out a general framework and provide some guidance here.
2) You should, in general, try and insure homogeneity on as few variables as possible. I suspect common values and a shared sense of the objective will always need to be shared. If people cannot agree on what they're trying to achieve and share the broadest sense of the rules of the road, then I fail to see how they can ever work together. Certain professions may require common experiences like certain degrees or professional accreditations. But often, companies have an unspoken sense of how people should come across. They require that people speak a certain way, dress a certain way... When this becomes part of the culture it can be very toxic. Ask yourself very carefully: do we really need homogeneity around X in order to succeed. Not whether you like it. Not whether it makes you more personally comfortable. Ask yourself whether you really need people to share X. Because if you don't, don't let your culture form an unspoken rule that requires such homogeneity.
I think it is critical to carefully manage this balance. I believe successful strong cultures will do this very well. You want an organization that gives people a sense of belonging. In order to have that sense, they must know to what they belong. It must be obvious to insiders and outsiders what you stand for. But if you take this too far, your organization can quickly become stifling. In the absence of careful management of the criteria for being "one of us," the list will grow. And before long, your organization will have all of the color and vigor of the Soviet Union.
Yet we also know that there needs to be some commonality amongst members of a group. We all know, for instance, that common values are important. I just saw a great presentation from Netflix on their corporate culture and how they insure that their employees truly share their values.
So how heterogenous or homogenous should we be? Well let's start with the ends of that spectrum.
Pure heterogeneity would mean that there is complete and total difference. No two people within the organization are alike in any way. There are no shared values, beliefs or ideas. There are no shared experiences. Heck, no two people even speak the same language! Clearly that cannot work.
Pure homogeneity would mean that everyone is completely alike. There would be absolutely no diversity whatsoever. Obviously this doesn't work either.
I think the received wisdom is true. Heterogeneity and homogeneity are both needed.
Heterogeneity is needed because much as in biology, social and intellectual diversity lead to the most favorable outcomes over the long term. Differences of opinion, of thinking styles, of experiences - when managed properly - do lead to better outcomes because the organization has a richer database from which to pull its answers. Heterogeneity is valuable because it maximizes your chances that you will survive over the long term by insuring that people from within challenge your thinking so that you don't have to be challenged as much by people from the outside. Magic and brilliance are most likely to come from an unexpected clash of ideas - the sort of clash that requires diversity.
Homogeneity is needed because without it, there is no organization. Homogeneity is the glue that holds together what would otherwise be a mass of individuals. Organizational logic allows for e pluribus unum - out of many, one.
So how much do you need of each?
I would propose two principles though I believe I have not yet thought this issue through sufficiently and would welcome your thoughts:
1) When the nature of your output is inherently creative and novel then you should favor heterogeneity over homogeneity. Organizations that are constantly solving new problems for which there is no existing template should value heterogeneity more. This could include the arts, some kinds of marketing, technology... More physical professions that literally require people to be pulling in the same direction probably should value homogeneity more. Again, I've already pointed out that there must be a balance. I'm just trying to lay out a general framework and provide some guidance here.
2) You should, in general, try and insure homogeneity on as few variables as possible. I suspect common values and a shared sense of the objective will always need to be shared. If people cannot agree on what they're trying to achieve and share the broadest sense of the rules of the road, then I fail to see how they can ever work together. Certain professions may require common experiences like certain degrees or professional accreditations. But often, companies have an unspoken sense of how people should come across. They require that people speak a certain way, dress a certain way... When this becomes part of the culture it can be very toxic. Ask yourself very carefully: do we really need homogeneity around X in order to succeed. Not whether you like it. Not whether it makes you more personally comfortable. Ask yourself whether you really need people to share X. Because if you don't, don't let your culture form an unspoken rule that requires such homogeneity.
I think it is critical to carefully manage this balance. I believe successful strong cultures will do this very well. You want an organization that gives people a sense of belonging. In order to have that sense, they must know to what they belong. It must be obvious to insiders and outsiders what you stand for. But if you take this too far, your organization can quickly become stifling. In the absence of careful management of the criteria for being "one of us," the list will grow. And before long, your organization will have all of the color and vigor of the Soviet Union.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
No shoes
Something wonderful happened to me recently. It seemed too good to be true. And so I started thinking "when will the other shoe drop?"
So many of us spend far too much time wondering about when and how life will take a turn for the worse. This isn't healthy. And it's counterproductive.
Worrying about the future degrades your ability to live in the present. And not living well in the present degrades your future opportunities. So from a purely rational standpoint, it is far more productive to live your best now than to worry about the future. Let me be clear: I am not advocating an irresponsible worry-free life. This is not about "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we shall die." That is simply irrational escapism. It is no more intelligent than covering your eyes while driving so as to avoid an accident. What I am saying is that living life excellently will open up many doors to you and that you can only live excellently if you focus on what you are doing now. Distracting yourself with thoughts about future possibilities pulls you away from the very excellence that will ameliorate your future.
But worrying about the future does far more damage than simply to reduce your future value. Your present experiences are not just the keys to open doors you will chance upon in the future. Your present experiences become part of your soul. More accurately, your perceptions and interpretations of those experiences become part of your soul. When you are worrying about the possibility that there may be a chance that someday something bad might happen to you, you cast a shadow on everything you experience. You make it much more difficult to see beauty. And as life rolls on, your soul becomes gray and listless.
There is an alternative. You just refuse to focus on this. You take what comes your way and deal with it. When beauty crosses your path, you enjoy it. When you have occasion for laughter you grab it and shake loose every little peal. When love comes your way, you wrap yourself in it and luxuriate. And, when hard times come your way you deal with them too. But when you deal with them, you will be armed with a strong, vibrant soul.
And so, I have adopted a policy. The no-shoe policy. I will do my best to not think about or worry about any dropping shoes. I will live my life as best I can. Enjoy what the world graciously provides, try and accept whatever real limitations inhere in me or in nature. I will try and be smart and do what I can to create a better future but I will live in the world as it stands now and not in some imaginary world that might never come to be.
I invite you to adopt the no-shoe policy as well.
So many of us spend far too much time wondering about when and how life will take a turn for the worse. This isn't healthy. And it's counterproductive.
Worrying about the future degrades your ability to live in the present. And not living well in the present degrades your future opportunities. So from a purely rational standpoint, it is far more productive to live your best now than to worry about the future. Let me be clear: I am not advocating an irresponsible worry-free life. This is not about "let us eat and drink for tomorrow we shall die." That is simply irrational escapism. It is no more intelligent than covering your eyes while driving so as to avoid an accident. What I am saying is that living life excellently will open up many doors to you and that you can only live excellently if you focus on what you are doing now. Distracting yourself with thoughts about future possibilities pulls you away from the very excellence that will ameliorate your future.
But worrying about the future does far more damage than simply to reduce your future value. Your present experiences are not just the keys to open doors you will chance upon in the future. Your present experiences become part of your soul. More accurately, your perceptions and interpretations of those experiences become part of your soul. When you are worrying about the possibility that there may be a chance that someday something bad might happen to you, you cast a shadow on everything you experience. You make it much more difficult to see beauty. And as life rolls on, your soul becomes gray and listless.
There is an alternative. You just refuse to focus on this. You take what comes your way and deal with it. When beauty crosses your path, you enjoy it. When you have occasion for laughter you grab it and shake loose every little peal. When love comes your way, you wrap yourself in it and luxuriate. And, when hard times come your way you deal with them too. But when you deal with them, you will be armed with a strong, vibrant soul.
And so, I have adopted a policy. The no-shoe policy. I will do my best to not think about or worry about any dropping shoes. I will live my life as best I can. Enjoy what the world graciously provides, try and accept whatever real limitations inhere in me or in nature. I will try and be smart and do what I can to create a better future but I will live in the world as it stands now and not in some imaginary world that might never come to be.
I invite you to adopt the no-shoe policy as well.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Bald is beautiful
Well maybe not. But if you're going bald anyway, I highly recommend shaving your head. It's more honest, it feels great and I think generally, people dig it.
I had decided about a year ago that I might want to shave my head. Which I guess means I hadn't decided a damn thing. But I at least considered considering it. So over the course of a year I slowly had my hair cut shorter and shorter. I started with the #3 clippers and worked my way finally down to zero. No, zero doesn't mean no hair. You'd think it would, but, apparently, there is a quadruple zero. And even that doesn't mean you're bald.
Anyway, about a month ago I took the plunge and shaved my head. It's the way to go. The first few times I used a regular razor. But then someone told me about an awesome device made by HeadBlade. If you're going to shave your head, you must check out HeadBlade. The device they make does a much better job than the Gillette Fusion which is an expensive premium blade.
And, as a marketer, I love their brand. It feels like their stuff is made and marketed by guys for guys. It's a very cool brand.
If you're interested, click here and check out the products. I have the HeadBlade Sport and I also use their ClearHead product after I shave. If you buy using this link, you get 20% off your order and I get a 10% credit. Please use the following referral code when you place your order: 35609
And no, I'm not shilling for these guys. I love the stuff, I use it myself, the products are great and the company seems cool.
I had decided about a year ago that I might want to shave my head. Which I guess means I hadn't decided a damn thing. But I at least considered considering it. So over the course of a year I slowly had my hair cut shorter and shorter. I started with the #3 clippers and worked my way finally down to zero. No, zero doesn't mean no hair. You'd think it would, but, apparently, there is a quadruple zero. And even that doesn't mean you're bald.
Anyway, about a month ago I took the plunge and shaved my head. It's the way to go. The first few times I used a regular razor. But then someone told me about an awesome device made by HeadBlade. If you're going to shave your head, you must check out HeadBlade. The device they make does a much better job than the Gillette Fusion which is an expensive premium blade.
And, as a marketer, I love their brand. It feels like their stuff is made and marketed by guys for guys. It's a very cool brand.
If you're interested, click here and check out the products. I have the HeadBlade Sport and I also use their ClearHead product after I shave. If you buy using this link, you get 20% off your order and I get a 10% credit. Please use the following referral code when you place your order: 35609
And no, I'm not shilling for these guys. I love the stuff, I use it myself, the products are great and the company seems cool.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Kudos to the folks at NB Web Express
I'm a big fan of New Balance footwear and, particularly, the good folks at NB Web Express. I really enjoy shopping there. They always provide great advice, they know what will fit me based on my foot type and previous purchases.
In September 2008 they sent me a coupon code for $50. I had just spent a lot of money with them and they wanted to reward me. I was very appreciative. It felt really nice to be recognized as a good customer and treated accordingly. I kept their email with the coupon code in my inbox. I figured with a year to redeem (super generous BTW) I would have plenty of time.
But a year-long redemption period is no match for my procrastination skills. And a few days ago I realized that the coupon had expired.
I sent them an email asking if they would extend the coupon. Sure enough, they sent me an email graciously offering to do so. And, upon my request, they sent me a note with my recent purchase and some suggestions on other shoes that might work for me.
I just love these guys. And that is why when I need sneakers or hiking shoes, I go straight to NB Web Express. I don't even bother looking elsewhere. They are loyal to me. And I am loyal to them.
In September 2008 they sent me a coupon code for $50. I had just spent a lot of money with them and they wanted to reward me. I was very appreciative. It felt really nice to be recognized as a good customer and treated accordingly. I kept their email with the coupon code in my inbox. I figured with a year to redeem (super generous BTW) I would have plenty of time.
But a year-long redemption period is no match for my procrastination skills. And a few days ago I realized that the coupon had expired.
I sent them an email asking if they would extend the coupon. Sure enough, they sent me an email graciously offering to do so. And, upon my request, they sent me a note with my recent purchase and some suggestions on other shoes that might work for me.
I just love these guys. And that is why when I need sneakers or hiking shoes, I go straight to NB Web Express. I don't even bother looking elsewhere. They are loyal to me. And I am loyal to them.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Just because it's shiny
It's hard to stay on track.
First of all, you have to have a track. That's not so easy. You've got to figure out what animates you, makes your heart sing. Basically, you've got to find your soul. Having found it, you need to figure out how to create a life around it. How to spend your time. With whom to associate. How to earn a living...
BTW, I'm not saying you ought to pick a track and stick with it forever. You should always re-assess what you're all about. As Emerson famously said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Your track needn't have been foolish from inception but as times change (and as you change), it may become foolish and obsolete. So no, don't pick a path and stubbornly follow it forever. But you should always be on some path. Know who and what you are and have a plan for being that. [Similar to Gretchen Rubin's "Be Gretchen" rule.]
And then you have to stay on track. And staying on track is really hard. Much like holding reservations after you've taken them.
You see, shiny objects are going to appear as you move through life attempting to manifest your soul in all that you do. Those shiny objects can be large and very shiny such as beautiful women or men that look so delicious but are all wrong for you, financial opportunities or jobs that can be lucrative but which will take you further from your soul... Or, they can be small and just sparkle a little bit when you're at a moment of weakness. A brief opportunity to say something hurtful to someone you'd really like to hurt, a chance to not tell someone something they ought to hear but which will be difficult to say, even parking in a handicapped spot for just 2 minutes.
But you've got to ignore the shiny objects. They aren't good for you. They will destroy your life. Because your life is entirely about your soul. The rest of it is all about enabling the soul. And the problem is that the soul is not subject to apprehension by the senses while all of the other stuff looks so vivid, smells so delicious, tastes...oh man how it tastes! But those things are not real the way your soul is.
So find a way. Muster the courage to ignore the shiny object in an effort to burnish your soul.
First of all, you have to have a track. That's not so easy. You've got to figure out what animates you, makes your heart sing. Basically, you've got to find your soul. Having found it, you need to figure out how to create a life around it. How to spend your time. With whom to associate. How to earn a living...
BTW, I'm not saying you ought to pick a track and stick with it forever. You should always re-assess what you're all about. As Emerson famously said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..." Your track needn't have been foolish from inception but as times change (and as you change), it may become foolish and obsolete. So no, don't pick a path and stubbornly follow it forever. But you should always be on some path. Know who and what you are and have a plan for being that. [Similar to Gretchen Rubin's "Be Gretchen" rule.]
And then you have to stay on track. And staying on track is really hard. Much like holding reservations after you've taken them.
You see, shiny objects are going to appear as you move through life attempting to manifest your soul in all that you do. Those shiny objects can be large and very shiny such as beautiful women or men that look so delicious but are all wrong for you, financial opportunities or jobs that can be lucrative but which will take you further from your soul... Or, they can be small and just sparkle a little bit when you're at a moment of weakness. A brief opportunity to say something hurtful to someone you'd really like to hurt, a chance to not tell someone something they ought to hear but which will be difficult to say, even parking in a handicapped spot for just 2 minutes.
But you've got to ignore the shiny objects. They aren't good for you. They will destroy your life. Because your life is entirely about your soul. The rest of it is all about enabling the soul. And the problem is that the soul is not subject to apprehension by the senses while all of the other stuff looks so vivid, smells so delicious, tastes...oh man how it tastes! But those things are not real the way your soul is.
So find a way. Muster the courage to ignore the shiny object in an effort to burnish your soul.
Stick with your ends
Everybody I know that works at a large company decries the bureaucracy that inhibits progress. And yet it continues. The system has a life of its own. It wants. It needs. It is jealous. And it protects its own interests by torturing and killing anyone who threatens its continuity.
Let's remember how it all started. Someone had an idea. A way to help people and earn money for it. At some point he needed help. So he got some of his buddies to join him. They worked together. They had some success. The rented office space. They got a few phones and some chairs. They printed business cards. They had some more success. They hired a few more people. At some point, someone asked for their policy on bringing dogs to work. Someone else wanted to know whether they had a company holiday on Arbor Day. So they realized they needed policies. They created an HR department and hired Lucinda the HR lady. They hired a law firm to review their HR policies. They indeed decided to hold a company holiday on Arbor Day and they instituted the annual company 'visit the local forest and bang drums' event.
And so it went. One day, the founders woke up and realized they had a culture. They had an organization. It had rules. There were forms to fill out. In quadruplicate. Their efficiency consultant told them quadruplicate was 327% more effective than triplicate. Oh, they had an efficiency consultant.
And when they beheld what they had wrought, they realized it sucked. People were doing things not because they were the right things to do. Not because they would advance the company, generate the greatest benefit for its customers or community. Employees - oh yeah, now they were called employees - did things because that's just the way it was done around there. The system was in control. Not reason. Not passion. Not the human soul and its constant yearning to improve itself and its environment. No, the system was hegemon.
But wait, we're just a couple of buddies with a great idea. We wanted to help people and make some money doing what we love. We are thinkers. We are entrepreneurial. We're against everything that the "system" stands for!
No. You are the system.
We build these systems because they provide a benefit. It actually isn't smart not to know the right way to do something. Society would not advance if we didn't figure things out and keep improving. And yeah, we do need Lucinda the HR lady.
But these are all means. They are tools for translating our passion into success on a bigger scale. If we just want to make 10 widgets per year by hand and sell them at local craft fairs, we don't need a system. But if we want to expand, we do. The danger lies in letting the means become ends to themselves. And this is the natural way for things to develop. We must fight this. The means cannot be allowed to exert their own sense of destiny to become ends. As long as the benefits they deliver outweigh their costs, they should be allowed to survive. But we must be constantly vigilant to insure we always keep their natural lust for power in check.
Otherwise we will wake up and realize that we serve the system rather than ensuring that the system serves us.
Let's remember how it all started. Someone had an idea. A way to help people and earn money for it. At some point he needed help. So he got some of his buddies to join him. They worked together. They had some success. The rented office space. They got a few phones and some chairs. They printed business cards. They had some more success. They hired a few more people. At some point, someone asked for their policy on bringing dogs to work. Someone else wanted to know whether they had a company holiday on Arbor Day. So they realized they needed policies. They created an HR department and hired Lucinda the HR lady. They hired a law firm to review their HR policies. They indeed decided to hold a company holiday on Arbor Day and they instituted the annual company 'visit the local forest and bang drums' event.
And so it went. One day, the founders woke up and realized they had a culture. They had an organization. It had rules. There were forms to fill out. In quadruplicate. Their efficiency consultant told them quadruplicate was 327% more effective than triplicate. Oh, they had an efficiency consultant.
And when they beheld what they had wrought, they realized it sucked. People were doing things not because they were the right things to do. Not because they would advance the company, generate the greatest benefit for its customers or community. Employees - oh yeah, now they were called employees - did things because that's just the way it was done around there. The system was in control. Not reason. Not passion. Not the human soul and its constant yearning to improve itself and its environment. No, the system was hegemon.
But wait, we're just a couple of buddies with a great idea. We wanted to help people and make some money doing what we love. We are thinkers. We are entrepreneurial. We're against everything that the "system" stands for!
No. You are the system.
We build these systems because they provide a benefit. It actually isn't smart not to know the right way to do something. Society would not advance if we didn't figure things out and keep improving. And yeah, we do need Lucinda the HR lady.
But these are all means. They are tools for translating our passion into success on a bigger scale. If we just want to make 10 widgets per year by hand and sell them at local craft fairs, we don't need a system. But if we want to expand, we do. The danger lies in letting the means become ends to themselves. And this is the natural way for things to develop. We must fight this. The means cannot be allowed to exert their own sense of destiny to become ends. As long as the benefits they deliver outweigh their costs, they should be allowed to survive. But we must be constantly vigilant to insure we always keep their natural lust for power in check.
Otherwise we will wake up and realize that we serve the system rather than ensuring that the system serves us.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Where are you hiding yourself?
There are so many interesting people out there. People who don't seem like other people. Who are just themselves. I'm not talking about wacky nutjobs who look like Jesus or wear hats made of tinfoil to prevent the aliens from recording their thoughts. I'm talking about "mainstream" people who are just themselves. Who bring a twist to whatever they do that comes from within and reflects what and who they are.
And then there are so many others - most people - who seem so desperate to prove that they are not themselves. These people want to be the average of everyone else. They won't use the word "average" to describe their aspirations. They'll tell you they want to be the best. They want to win. But they behave in ways guaranteed to snuff out anything interesting or novel.
These conformists are human. They have a soul, an essence. Try as they might to cram it down deep beneath their skin, I know it is there.
Let it out people. Please. You're not helping anybody - including yourself - by filing down every interesting facet of your personality. You're just making the world dull and less capable of producing the diverse ideas that we all need to thrive.
And then there are so many others - most people - who seem so desperate to prove that they are not themselves. These people want to be the average of everyone else. They won't use the word "average" to describe their aspirations. They'll tell you they want to be the best. They want to win. But they behave in ways guaranteed to snuff out anything interesting or novel.
These conformists are human. They have a soul, an essence. Try as they might to cram it down deep beneath their skin, I know it is there.
Let it out people. Please. You're not helping anybody - including yourself - by filing down every interesting facet of your personality. You're just making the world dull and less capable of producing the diverse ideas that we all need to thrive.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Are you an 80 year old virgin?
If you've had some success in your life, you've probably built a good reputation in one or more areas and acquired for yourself some measure of influence. Influence is the ability to get other people to do things that they would not do in the absence of your actions.
This is good right?
Well, it can be. But too often I see people with influence using it to maintain the status quo. This is really nothing other than an effort to maintain the world in which their influence was grown so that it might continue to survive in the only petri dish it has ever known. This is hoarding influence rather than using it to effect positive change in the world.
But why hoard it? Why try to hold on to influence? Like any other asset, it only has value if it is used.
What are you saving yourself for? At some point you will have squandered your opportunities for improving the world. If you've already got influence, use it. It isn't going to get any better than it is right now.
In the end, you are going to be a dried up old hag. There's no avoiding that. The only question is whether you will look back with fondness on your struggles and successes as you tried to make your mark on the world or with regret at your having waited for just the right time.
Now is the right time. Don't let it pass you by. We need you!
This is good right?
Well, it can be. But too often I see people with influence using it to maintain the status quo. This is really nothing other than an effort to maintain the world in which their influence was grown so that it might continue to survive in the only petri dish it has ever known. This is hoarding influence rather than using it to effect positive change in the world.
But why hoard it? Why try to hold on to influence? Like any other asset, it only has value if it is used.
What are you saving yourself for? At some point you will have squandered your opportunities for improving the world. If you've already got influence, use it. It isn't going to get any better than it is right now.
In the end, you are going to be a dried up old hag. There's no avoiding that. The only question is whether you will look back with fondness on your struggles and successes as you tried to make your mark on the world or with regret at your having waited for just the right time.
Now is the right time. Don't let it pass you by. We need you!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Of souls and society
How does one reconcile the need for the soul to find its purest expression with the need for society to effectively function? This is perhaps the most difficult question for one who places unlimited value on the beauty and nobility of the human soul but who also admits of the need for people to assemble and march forward together.
And it is a thornier issue than some might think. This is not simply the conflict between individual and society. It is that and more. Sure, we can point to the importance for the individual of having the opportunity to self-express, an opportunity without which there might not be anything to express. But one can make a case that the needs of the soul are also the needs of society. That society cannot function without the robust and diverse development and expression of individual human souls. Much as we require biological diversity on our planet, we require the diversity of thought and behavior to help us refine our knowledge and our methods of living. John Stuart Mill expressed this same position in On Liberty:
"In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so?... Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind."
This is as true for the small adjustments we must make to move from legitimate expertise to even greater levels of accuracy and Truth as it is for the major leaps forward that require truly divergent thinking.
So if both individuals and societies need a diversity of expression of the soul, how can we insure this diversity while also respecting the more mundane needs of society?
I'm not going to offer any good answers here. I don't have any yet. But perhaps I can offer a few thoughts that may prove useful.
To start with, I think it important to acknowledge that some souls are just screwed up. Whether nature created them that way or they became so by dint of a malformed nurture, some people have evil at their core. Allowing them an opportunity to explore, develop and express their souls will accord them and society no benefit. They must, somehow, be prevented from doing so. And whether we conceptualize this as a necessary infringement on the rights of the soul based on Mill's greatest liberty formula or we argue that an evil soul is really no soul at all and that its restraint is actually a nod of respect to the human soul, most reasonable people agree that the restraint of an evil soul is good.
But this is almost easy. What of souls that are not evil but which are only non-conformist? The most extreme case might be where an individual rejects formal laws on moral grounds. The American Revolution would be one such example. Socrates' behavior in Athens another. The recent Iranian demonstrations another. And so on. What behavior should we support? In this case it seems hard to me to support maintaining the formal law and looking down on an individual that follows his soul in an effort to dismantle an unjust law. On the other hand, what if he is wrong? Do we want anarchy?
A less extreme case would be where an individual, in the search for a pure expression of soul, violates not a formal legal rule but an informal social more. Say he burps at a table where such behavior is considered impolite. In this case, it seems difficult to argue that individuals should restrain themselves. Sure, a loud burp might be unpleasant, but would we really want to stifle all thought and behavior that upsets social mores and prevailing opinions?
So it seems to me that there is a continuum along which we can place the various types of situations. At one end, lie situations where the pursuit of individual aims and the expression of the soul can only damage society. This is the case of the evil person bent on wreaking havoc. At the other end lie cases where the individual cannot meaningfully damage society. In the middle lie the difficult cases. The violation of law on purportedly moral grounds. The extreme business risk in pursuit of success. And the like.
From the perspective of society, I suppose we can talk about the expected value to society of pursuing the individual expression of the soul versus blindly maintaining the prevailing system. At least here we have a grounds for comparison in the common unit of value (though in practice it may be difficult or, even, impossible to measure).
But how can we ever decide between the value of letting souls pursue their beauty and nobility and the need to maintain societal harmony?
Which brings me back to my opening question. None the wiser but considerably more tired!
And it is a thornier issue than some might think. This is not simply the conflict between individual and society. It is that and more. Sure, we can point to the importance for the individual of having the opportunity to self-express, an opportunity without which there might not be anything to express. But one can make a case that the needs of the soul are also the needs of society. That society cannot function without the robust and diverse development and expression of individual human souls. Much as we require biological diversity on our planet, we require the diversity of thought and behavior to help us refine our knowledge and our methods of living. John Stuart Mill expressed this same position in On Liberty:
"In the case of any person whose judgement is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so?... Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind."
This is as true for the small adjustments we must make to move from legitimate expertise to even greater levels of accuracy and Truth as it is for the major leaps forward that require truly divergent thinking.
So if both individuals and societies need a diversity of expression of the soul, how can we insure this diversity while also respecting the more mundane needs of society?
I'm not going to offer any good answers here. I don't have any yet. But perhaps I can offer a few thoughts that may prove useful.
To start with, I think it important to acknowledge that some souls are just screwed up. Whether nature created them that way or they became so by dint of a malformed nurture, some people have evil at their core. Allowing them an opportunity to explore, develop and express their souls will accord them and society no benefit. They must, somehow, be prevented from doing so. And whether we conceptualize this as a necessary infringement on the rights of the soul based on Mill's greatest liberty formula or we argue that an evil soul is really no soul at all and that its restraint is actually a nod of respect to the human soul, most reasonable people agree that the restraint of an evil soul is good.
But this is almost easy. What of souls that are not evil but which are only non-conformist? The most extreme case might be where an individual rejects formal laws on moral grounds. The American Revolution would be one such example. Socrates' behavior in Athens another. The recent Iranian demonstrations another. And so on. What behavior should we support? In this case it seems hard to me to support maintaining the formal law and looking down on an individual that follows his soul in an effort to dismantle an unjust law. On the other hand, what if he is wrong? Do we want anarchy?
A less extreme case would be where an individual, in the search for a pure expression of soul, violates not a formal legal rule but an informal social more. Say he burps at a table where such behavior is considered impolite. In this case, it seems difficult to argue that individuals should restrain themselves. Sure, a loud burp might be unpleasant, but would we really want to stifle all thought and behavior that upsets social mores and prevailing opinions?
So it seems to me that there is a continuum along which we can place the various types of situations. At one end, lie situations where the pursuit of individual aims and the expression of the soul can only damage society. This is the case of the evil person bent on wreaking havoc. At the other end lie cases where the individual cannot meaningfully damage society. In the middle lie the difficult cases. The violation of law on purportedly moral grounds. The extreme business risk in pursuit of success. And the like.
From the perspective of society, I suppose we can talk about the expected value to society of pursuing the individual expression of the soul versus blindly maintaining the prevailing system. At least here we have a grounds for comparison in the common unit of value (though in practice it may be difficult or, even, impossible to measure).
But how can we ever decide between the value of letting souls pursue their beauty and nobility and the need to maintain societal harmony?
Which brings me back to my opening question. None the wiser but considerably more tired!
Monday, September 21, 2009
Yeah, it's that fast
I got a message from Twitter on Sunday at 12:15AM that some entity was now following me (I'll leave the name out but it sounded like some marketing agency). Ten seconds ago (so that's almost 24 hours to the minute), I got a direct message from them with a "special offer" to their new "Twitter friends" for their internet marketing training program.
Don't I feel special.
They have already been blocked and unfollowed.
It didn't have to be this way at all. They could have let me read their stuff for a while. They could have sent me a message telling me who they are, what they do and the kind of content I could expect from them. Over time, I might have been receptive to a pitch about their internet training. Now they will never know. They apparently wanted to skip the introductions, avoid buying me dinner and just hop right into bed. All without the benefit of me seeing how hot they are.
My friend Jeremy Epstein writes about this all the time. The world has changed. If you try to get in my face with your selling as opposed to engaging me respectfully in a relationship, you're done. You're done because it's just that easy to block you.
Don't I feel special.
They have already been blocked and unfollowed.
It didn't have to be this way at all. They could have let me read their stuff for a while. They could have sent me a message telling me who they are, what they do and the kind of content I could expect from them. Over time, I might have been receptive to a pitch about their internet training. Now they will never know. They apparently wanted to skip the introductions, avoid buying me dinner and just hop right into bed. All without the benefit of me seeing how hot they are.
My friend Jeremy Epstein writes about this all the time. The world has changed. If you try to get in my face with your selling as opposed to engaging me respectfully in a relationship, you're done. You're done because it's just that easy to block you.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Is courage worth it?
WARNING: For this post, I am going to conflate non-conformity and courage. I recognize that they are not the same thing. But they do share certain features and I am in the mood to conflate. If you are allergic to conflation, please consult your philosophy professional before reading this post.
The question posed in the title of this post is something I have been grappling with personally and professionally for some months now. In my life I have seen ample evidence of Emerson's comment that "for nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure." I have felt the sting of that whip many times. And lately it has got me wondering whether it's worth it.
After my two recent posts about change (see the most recent one here), I wanted to write about courage. Specifically, I wanted to exhort and encourage my tiny readership to act with courage in their lives.
But now I'm not so sure. I wonder if it's worth it.
On the one hand, courage is so badly needed in order to produce the revolutionary change I discussed in my last post on change. Someone must have the ability and willingness to challenge the prevailing order and produce the ideas that will illuminate the future.
On the other hand, there is that whipping.
So I don't know.
But it seems to me that those who are non-conformists, who are courageous just don't have a choice. I would imagine that the soldier that jumps on a grenade does so not out of a careful consideration of the relative merits of maintaining his own life versus preserving the lives of others, but simply because he cannot help himself. The thought of not saving the lives of his comrades is just not part of the package for him.
In a much smaller way, I think about myself. I feel that my life would be so much easier if I just went along. If I thought as others did, felt what they felt and acted as they act. But then I think about that life. It feels very much akin to what Thoreau meant when he wrote that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." I cannot really imagine living that life. I cannot imagine being happy without the ability to imagine a different world and attempting to bring it into existence.
What scares me about that is that I see a lifetime of whipping. It was much easier to take as a 20 year old. It's starting to hurt as a soon to be 40 year old.
The question posed in the title of this post is something I have been grappling with personally and professionally for some months now. In my life I have seen ample evidence of Emerson's comment that "for nonconformity the world whips you with its displeasure." I have felt the sting of that whip many times. And lately it has got me wondering whether it's worth it.
After my two recent posts about change (see the most recent one here), I wanted to write about courage. Specifically, I wanted to exhort and encourage my tiny readership to act with courage in their lives.
But now I'm not so sure. I wonder if it's worth it.
On the one hand, courage is so badly needed in order to produce the revolutionary change I discussed in my last post on change. Someone must have the ability and willingness to challenge the prevailing order and produce the ideas that will illuminate the future.
On the other hand, there is that whipping.
So I don't know.
But it seems to me that those who are non-conformists, who are courageous just don't have a choice. I would imagine that the soldier that jumps on a grenade does so not out of a careful consideration of the relative merits of maintaining his own life versus preserving the lives of others, but simply because he cannot help himself. The thought of not saving the lives of his comrades is just not part of the package for him.
In a much smaller way, I think about myself. I feel that my life would be so much easier if I just went along. If I thought as others did, felt what they felt and acted as they act. But then I think about that life. It feels very much akin to what Thoreau meant when he wrote that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." I cannot really imagine living that life. I cannot imagine being happy without the ability to imagine a different world and attempting to bring it into existence.
What scares me about that is that I see a lifetime of whipping. It was much easier to take as a 20 year old. It's starting to hurt as a soon to be 40 year old.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)