Archive for July, 2009

In my experience, there are many people who assume that in order to lead, they need to know all the answers or be more experienced than the people they are leading.  As a result, they are content to do the things they are asked, and nothing further.  They don’t feel they bear any responsibility for the outcome of the project, only their portion, and that someone else, who has all of the answers, will make sure that the entire thing turns out okay.  They don’t ask why this fits in with the big picture, they just do what they are told.

The reality however is that leaders are not the ones that have all the answers (I would venture to say the never do), but they are the ones that initiate.  They try to understand the bigger picture, and even if they don’t know all that is required, they try to get together the people that do so that progress can be made.  They see the goal, they drive toward it.

Don’t shy away from the opportunity to lead just because you assume someone else knows what’s going on, it’s likely they don’t, and they need your help.

One of my friends and I have an ongoing joke about writing the next new management book.  What we’ll do is simply rehash a mix of 4 or 5 other business books, then find anecdotal examples showing that all successful companies have followed our theory.  It’ll be the next big seller.

Is rehashing things good?  Sure. Given the amount of complexity that we have to deal with, it can be beneficial to dwell on a particular perspective of management as offered by a new book. Yes, they are slicing the same problem, but the way that they slice it or the word pictures can provide better clarity in our minds about things as well as remind us of ideas that we all know, but haven’t dwelt on recently.

That said, there is a lot of ’stuff’ that simply isn’t worth reading.

“Of the making of books, there will be no end.”

The Paradox of Choice is an interesting book, that I think is often overlooked.  The premise of the book is actually, that making choices comes with a consequence and while we wouldn’t necessarily give up any particular choice, the total number of choices that we are forced to make is at the very least taxing and potentially robs of us contentment that we might otherwise have.

This view is contended by both Seth Godin “Meatball Sundae”  and Chris Anderson “The Long Tail”, which basically content that people want choice (since they either are willing to buy something that is unique to their taste or because people buy in the long tail).  I think the Paradox of Choice instead argues more about the cost that we have personally in making choices.

One take away from the book was the difference between those who maximize (try to find the BEST deal) and those who satisfice  (Set their standards high, but then buy the first thing that meets their standards). Those who maximize tend to oversell themselves on the product and have more buyers remorse.  Those who satisfice are willing to take it as it comes more often.

Another aspect of this, that ties in with a previous post on the Inertia of Uncertainty, is that when we are presented with too many choices (i.e. someone offers to let you sample 20 different kinds of jam, vs 3 kinds of jam), you are more likely to buy when there are fewer options to choose between.  Couple this with our desire to make Relative Decisions, we can present to our customers and friends choices that best let them choose in a way that is most comfortable to them.

A final note on this, Godin, Anderson, and others, make the point: People want something that was made exactly for them (mass customization).  In this case, having a huge amount of choice can be incredible, BUT you must provide the decider with an index that lets them find exactly what they are looking for.  I recommend reading the Paradox of Choice for some additional perspective on how we decide.

As we continue to progress deeper into a world where things that used to be scarce (technological gadgets, entertainment sources, varieties of food products, etc), are becoming abundant, one thing that is not becoming abundant is excellence.  For every iPod, there are hundreds of mp3 player’s you’ll never heard about.  For every Facebook, there are thousands of websites we’ll never visit.

It’s becoming increasingly easy to create mediocre products or user experiences, but these will quickly be forgotten, if they are ever noticed at all.  We need to strive for excellence if we hope to be noticed or if we hope to make a difference.  Whether we are searching after personal excellence, or excellence in our business, we can’t settle for mediocrity and hope to stumble our way through.

Many things are becoming abundant, but excellence is not among them.

Inertia (n)  -
Resistance or disinclination to motion, action, or change (American Heritage Dictionary)

Someone once said to me, “What’s amazing about Napster is not how fast it grew, but rather how slow it grew, given the fact that it removed all barriers to obtaining something that all people enjoy — music”. Why did it grow so slowly?  There are many reasons ranging from legal or moral concerns through simply not knowing exactly how to set it up. People come up with reasons to resist change.

This is a barrier that all innovators have to overcome – the uncertainty others feel about whether or not something will work multiplied by the amount that they actually need something to improve in that area of their life.  As an inventor or innovator, we become enamored with the product or service we can provide.  We understand it’s benefits and bask in them. We believe that if we just explain  to a customer why this is so great, they would naturally switch.  Unfortunately, this often frustratingly, falls on deaf ears; even Google has this problem in trying to oust Outlook.

By our very nature, we figure out a way to make our lives work.  There are always things in our lives that aren’t working as well as we wish, but most things are satisfactory.  When someone approaches us about how to entertain ourselves in a new way, we’re wary.  The old way was satisfying, and so there isn’t much need to change.  This is why selling pain killers is easier than vitamins.  People will take action if it will eliminate their pain.  Now you can sell vitamins better if  you can scare people enough about taking vitamins, that suddenly the vitamins become the painkiller of  fear.

However, when we are truly uncertain of what course of action to take, and when there is a myriad of uncertainty around us, it only solidifies our position of not changing.  People find it easier to NOT decide, then to decide to take an action that may not solve the problem.  This non-decision is, in itself, a decision, but as humans it is the default course of action.  Like a deer in the headlights, when we feel scared, we often take no action at all, even if it’s to our own destruction.

Uncertainty breeds complacency, and as a result, things change far more slowly than the technologist thinks they will. If we are satisfied with something, we are likely to not want to try something that will be incrementally better and instead stick with what we know.  If you are trying to sell people on something new, the potential benefits have to be large enough or hit  a pain point that makes your customer focus on trying something new.

In some of my reading, I have come upon a style of describing situations that I find fairly interesting.The authors use the antithesis or an anti-description as creating something that is very vivid.

For example, from a recent reading:

“The words seemed to drip from her mouth, not like water, but like mayonnaise”

Or another one:

“The plane was packed, not like a sardine can, but like an ER and with the same smell”

By using a negative description first, it creates a mental image (since as people we don’t do well with negatives – i.e. don’t think of an elephant), and the following clarification then replaces something in the image in a vivid way. Not a break through, but I do find this effective.  Something to think about when we are trying to create a vividness in a story.