Take a number!
By the time we need to get a number we are in line already. There is still a chance of turning back but the CONDITIONS are such, that most of us tend to just take a number; the events leading us to this point are results of us already being a number: taking one is a symbological act: acceptance and, in the best scenario, resolve to make the best of it within GIVEN CONDITIONS.
Changing the conditions seems like a crazy idea: impossible or at the very least too late. Why fight it? By getting in line we will win. Some of us more some of us less, but inevitably, we will win. In fact it seems that the only way to lose is by being out of line. All words of wisdom from within the “line” follow the same patterns:
- get in line
- views, rules and behaviors in the line
- don’t quit (the line).
Views, rules and behaviors condition us. We adjust. If we rebel, we rebel according to them. If we challenge we do it within the boundaries; but we hardly ever challenge the boundaries. If we quit, we don’t quit the line; we just quit trying to win more.
What if we are in the wrong line? If it’s an issue for us to “take a number”, chances are we are. To be certain we must step out.
At the very minimum:
- we must quit the line
- stop acting like insignificant numbers and
- follow our own direction.
Autonomy: own views; own rules; acts of freedom.
Perfect differentiation
Is it plausible that only one concept exists for each industry? Only one perfect concept that must be actualized? One for automotive, one for aerospace, one for telecommunication, one for IT, etc.
Or perhaps one for each basic function: one for transport, one for communication, one for making (manufacturing), one for design, one for service, etc?
Let’s assume this is actually possible. What would that mean?
It would mean that whoever could “capture” this perfect concept, aligned the company to it and treated it as the company’s purpose, would be able to truly differentiate themselves; even in industries where differentiation is nearly impossible.
What would a near perfect differentiation mean?
It would mean being right: treating people right (customers, employees, other stakeholders), communicating right, growing right, thinking right.
It would mean acting very different (being right is different!), since the context for action is different.
How would it work?
1. the concept would be articulated; the HOW is so interesting, it deserves more space than this
2. based on the articulated concept, the RIGHT strategy would be developed
3. based on the concept and the strategy, the company would be transformed (if it’s not a new company)
Everything we know and do is an alternative to this.
Where else?
Mainstream is not exceptional. The proportion of the exceptional in mainstream institutions is very low (with all due respect…).
Business, academic, political, whatever institutions/organizations are not set up to be exceptional. There are exceptional people in these organizations, sure; but only a few.
Exceptional people are either shaking the boat, or they are out, on the periphery. It’s easy to find those, who are shaking the boat.
Are you engaged on the periphery, or do you follow only the mainstream?
This is a question of identity.
How to deal with executive search firms
1. Pick your contacts carefully. There are search firms at every corner. Have relationship with consultants who are aligned to the same values and principles as you are (see also point 10). Meet them and get to know them well!
2. Be courteous; not only be acting nice, but by trying to understand whom you’re facing (point 1). An interaction with a search guy always has much broader implications than the position being discussed. Know who he/she is, where he’s come from, what he wants, how he sees your market whom he’s dealing with, what he thinks about issues important to you. If he doesn’t introduce himself thoroughly himself, ask him to do so. You maybe surprised by what you hear. Some search guys sit on boards, have factories, are investors, etc.
3. Don’t be opportunistic. One-off opportunities don’t build relationships. Remain in touch also when you’re not looking for something new. Calling when you want something and ignoring people when you don’t, doesn’t show class.
When you’re on the market or in the interview process:
4. Have the right expectations:
- the role of search guys is NOT to find a job for you! It doesn’t make much sense to start shooting out your resume to search firms when you’re looking for a job. If you still decide to do it avoid addressing them as Dear Recruiter!
- some of them are expected to do more than just listen to the audio version of your resume and ask situational questions so they can fill out a template. Some of them want to see you in action: what you think about macro events’ effect on your industry, can you develop concepts on the spot, can you adjust your thesis according to new information, do you have an opinion on what you want to do with a company, etc.; this is a good thing!
- both of you are there to do the right thing. If the job is not right for you, don’t go for it. This sounds contra productive especially if you need one, but long term it is the right thing for you. If the search guy decides it’s not the right thing for you, have respect: he probably has his reasons and perspective. If he’s wrong or you’re wrong things tend to balance out in the end.
5. Have an open, flexible mind. Believe and expect that absolutely anything can happen and that the right thing will happen. Don’t forget: the right thing is neither positive nor negative. It’s just right.
6. Don’t forget to always have unconditional class: even if you don’t win the position, if you feel you’re treated unfairly, in the face of whatever negativity!
7. Prepare. Know crucial facts, know what you want, know what you want to find out. Being prepared is incredibly impressive.
8. Take the conversation seriously; even if you are a celebrity CEO and you have 5 other interested parties talking to you right now and you feel you’re doing a favor by sitting down. If you don’t take the conversation seriously, you are in contradiction.
Note: in my experience well known celebrity CEOs who are courted by everybody always take the conversation seriously.
9. Listen, ask questions, clarify, understand. Listen, think in context; if something seems out of context ask questions, clarify, understand. Listen, … etc.
10. Resist making statements about yourself. Typical examples: I am a good communicator, I am cummunicative (I hear this a lot recently, but have no idea what it means), I have good people skills, I am highly intellectual (this is not a joke, I’ve heard it happening), I am operational, I am pragmatic, I am versatile, my time is very valuable, I am very high level (I’ve heard somebody saying this one too), I am highly qualified, etc. These statements are invariably almost always out of context; there is simply no context for them.
+ Bonus:
DO NOT say: “as you can see it from my resume”. Ever.
Related note:
how to deal with candidates:
http://prakhsis.com/blog/?p=82
The breakthrough-paradox
I’ve spent a lot of time listening to great managers analyzing their mistakes. One of the patterns that emerged is what I like to call “breakthrough paradox”. I have heard many stories of failed efforts to solve this significant success factor; and I heard some success stories, too.
A simple definition of a breakthrough paradox is when goals are achieved despite the fact that crucial things are not in place to accomplish them. It always brings MASSIVE change.
Reaching critical mass quickly without (very often even with) outside financing is a breakthrough paradox for startups.
Building top performing management teams in emerging markets is a breakthrough paradox for investors.
Creating the right new concept for an organization facing a “strategic inflection point” and then aligning the organization to it, is a breakthrough-paradox; think about the print publishers’ dilemma.
Successful post M&A integration is a breakthrough paradox (the formula is missing).
Obviously a breakthrough paradox is rarely solved and when it isn’t….there’s no breakthrough. Things continue the way they were and they eventually die off or sink (further) into mediocrity.
More and more managers are in a situation where a breakthrough paradox is expected of them. To achieve breakthrough paradox is a systemic challenge, so tons of things are necessary for success and the whole thing must be treated… as a whole!
Three basic factors must be given attention to:
1. Awareness. Sounds trivial, but it’s crucial. Everybody knows that “we have a problem”; this is not awareness. Awareness means that not only do we know that we must treat this situation OUTSIDE of the domain of normality (box, whatever), but we (or at the very least the top guy) actually step out of our reality; literally. Thinking, perceiving, interacting, etc. outside. Not only outside the normality of the organization of course, but outside of the “strategic environment” as well.
2. Orientation; towards transcendence. This is also obvious but crucial. Outside the box could be under the box, next to the box or above the box. If the guys in the management team think below the box, chances are they have absolutely no awareness even of their own situation . If the team steps out and stays next to the box, they won’t be able to bring in any necessary (vertical) perspective. This is what happens in most cases, when they bring in best practices from other industries. Transcendence means leaving the box below.
Note: opposite to common belief being oriented towards “transcendence” does not automatically mean losing sight of reality! The overwhelming majority of the so called creative types who are responsible for this perception are merely running circles around the box. The crazier ones venture somewhat farther, but still: they’re on the same level, lacking perspective and thus they are lacking the right view and resulting thinking!
3. Thinking.
In the box and below the box the dominant thinking pattern is “opposites”: either or; we and them. Zero sum games. Thinking is highly mechanical and fear sets in as soon as the boundaries are reached. This thinking is incapable of transcendence and when it succumbs to fear, it starts focusing on smaller and smaller pieces and practically disintegrates the organization.
Outside the box on the same level (on the same horizontal plane) the thinking pattern is “analogies”: The way it works there, works here too. This thinking is much more flexible than and superior to the “opposites” thinking pattern and may achieve great results; however this thinking is still based on available facts and as such it rarely transcends the domain of analysis.
Thinking that is capable of rising above currently perceived reality (normality) maybe called “unifying”. The unifying thinking pattern is the foundation for synthesis, which is of course the foundation of any kind of integration in any setting. This thinking is not mechanical, it’s more than flexible: it’s powerful: it doesn’t confuse “combination” with creativity, but actually creates.
What happens when the 3 basics are in place: you’re aware of what you’re facing, you have the perspective and the appropriate thinking, maybe you even have the concept that needs to be implemented. Chances are that by this time you are crystal clear that you are alone and you must go against the current. By this time you have the type of commitment that comes from an unwavering certainty that this MUST be done.
At this stage it’s advisable to look at your situation and make a decision:
- if you are in a position that allows you to do such massive change, go ahead and do it: you can’t not do it.
- if you are not in a position that allows you to do such massive change: put yourself in such a position; if it’s not possible in your current company find or buy another one and solve the breakthrough paradox!
The character trap
It’s simple: a man’s gotta pry and keep his mind open. All the time. This is difficult and dangerous. It’s like setting up a trap: the smallest mistake, one second of loosing focus and it snaps, catching the man who tried to set it up.
It would be more accurate to say that it’s not the mind but the character that is such a trap. It’s strength has been built up over a lifetime. It’s almost impossible to escape it. It attracts and repels based on its own rules; and forces man to obey these rules inertly. Controlling him. Practically owning him. The mind is the tool to keep it open which requires tremendous effort.
Why do it? Because if he doesn’t , he remains slaved to it; he can only save his pride by identifying with it, making himself believe that he is actually the character itself. This slavery makes all intelligent men unhappy. Let’s face it: less intelligent men maybe even proud of their characters; and this void, this lack of intelligence really comes forth, right on their forehead, like a stamp, or a “brand” so to speak.
Now what can we do practically about keeping the character in check?
Big thinkers wrote volumes about this, so here I just mention a mundane, every day example:
A listens to B explaining an idea. A happens to dislike B so he listens to the idea through his character (in other word lets his character listen to it) and doesn’t buy it.
Two weeks later A hears the same idea from C; A happens to like C and buys the idea. Again, he let his character do the listening, himself unable to listen with clarity and make decisions neutrally.
His character slowed him down: his likes and dislikes, his preferences, his accumulated beliefs, his fears, his routines.
If A managed to avoid the character trap, he’d be able to discern the value of the idea (and more importantly: ideal) itself right away. Right away is key! Right away (immediate recognition) means alert; it means dynamic; it means free!
Control or dilute
Control is a pre-requisit for integration. Conscious control. It keeps the whole thing together.
A common mistake people make is that they try to control only the undesirable; bad habits for example. But they don’t try to control good things; their talent for example.
What happens when there is no control is interesting:
When bad things are not controlled, they get intensified, when good things are not controlled, they are diluted. The key is probably in quantity. Quantity must be controlled if we want quality.
So when it comes to talent it’s a good thing to control it: to restrict the number of occasions you let it come to the surface. Truth is: they mostly come to the surface through impulses, just like bad habits.
Some examples:
If somebody is full of ideas he should exercise tremendous control over when and how to present them. Otherwise this talent gets diluted and becomes useless.
If somebody is great at socializing and making new contacts: he should restrict the occasions he exercises this talent. Each occasion will become more powerful. There is no power in 5000+ contacts.
If somebody is good at trivia, he should stop spitting out “facts” or if somebody has read a lot of books, he should stop quoting every time a conversation somehow is related to something he “knows”, if somebody is good at performing math calculations without a calculator, he should stop providing %’es at every opportunity when numbers are discussed and start thinking about context, timing, relevance.
When impulses are controlled and talent is applied objectively, as a tool that has nothing to do with the self, a distance develops between the self and talent, which is used to be perceived as part of the self. This distance, this void is “filled up” by power; this power is more important than the talent and as opposed to talent, it is actually part of the self.
If I remember well the following analogy is from Otto Weininger: he compared talent to a tumor that is first fed, then it grows larger and larger until it takes over the whole organization that at this stage exists only to feed it.
The safe choice
Once the guy becomes aware that it’s a safe choice, it is of course no longer safe. It’s always safe relative to something and that something tends to be the right one and in comparison to the right one, the safe choice presents the wrong compromise; from a higher point of view the wrong compromise is never safe!
There is of course the question of the stupid choice; but the opposite of the stupid choice is not the safe one, but also: the right one.
The safe choice is of course always “smart”, it always makes a lot of sense, it’s easy to find support for it.
From a higher point of view the safe choice is always unintelligent.
Choosing safe, when being aware of what’s right means lack of integrity.
So if the guy becomes aware, he must choose right, not matter what.
Fairytale about the Routine and the Ritual
There is a constant war between routine and ritual. The war is being fought among us and the stakes are high. The total domination of routine would mean the death of the ritual, and vice versa.
This war has a long history; it’s a history of decline. The story starts with peace. Peace means absolute dominion of the superior party, in our case the Ritual. When Ritual reigned, Routine existed in the stage of pure potential only. Every act was performed with complete awareness in the right “context” with the appropriate style elements that were in complete harmony with the purpose of the act. By the performance of the act time was completely eliminated and the the concept was lifted from potentiality to actuality in a high intensity creative tension. The actors, while performing the ritual were immortal and the acts were acts of immortality.
The weakening of awareness created ideal conditions for Routine to emerge and gradually gain foothold in increasingly more areas of life. The more it gained, the stronger it got, since Routine is supported by numbers.
Today the situation is somber. Routine has become so pervasive that it almost completely liquidated the Ritual. People’s awareness is almost in a constant state of sleep, things just “happen” to them, they are insatiable, constantly unsatisfied and frustrated and when Routine offers them the chance for peace, they gladly succumb to it. This is however not real peace since it means the liquidation of superiority, the very foundation of what makes people what they are: quality, creativity, courage, curiosity, intelligence.
This false peace, which is the temporary victory of routine, is what turned
- values into the targets of mockery
- royalty into merchants
- warriors into street fighters in a cage
- artists into regressive-infantile idiots
- clowns into celebrities
while everybody can do anything on a whim, everything is for sale and the style elements of inferiority are celebrated “qualities”.
The good news is that Routine can’t win completely, since it doesn’t exist by itself; its existence is dependent on weakness. It’s theoretical win would contain a self – contradiction, which renders it an absurdity.
It is time to re-instate rituals in all areas of life, to re-occupy lost territories, to pick up the weapons and say no to the wrong kind of peace, to become sharp and alert, to prepare, to separate, to distinguish so we can unite, to differentiate between quality and pseudo-quality, to re-define the value system, to rise and transcend this state, to be uncompromising: to fight the war instead of passively enduring it!
Because I said so
“Because I said so” is a stage.
If it is the end stage, it often comes from somebody who’s explored all available options and now he/she has to move on. The time of discussions is over, a decision is made; what we do may not be perfect, but we’re not aware of better scenarios; it’s time to focus and execute.
If it is the first stage, it often means fear dominates; and when fear dominates, the person contracts. In this stage it is impossible to expand, to let go of assumptions, to open up, to connect, to listen, to evaluate, to think.
Being aware of fear, turning attention to it, maybe the only way to trigger thinking and get out of it. Focusing on the problems at hand is an excuse to stay dominated by fear. “Because I said so” in such a case will cement the situation to such a degree that it will require an external force to break it up.