The Biggest Thing We Will Ever Battle
No Comments »Is complacency.
For most of us anyway, those of us that are just working, living, not fighting cancer or terrorists, or dealing with some tragic loss. The biggest thing we battle is just dying slowly, never living up to our capability or even worse, never exceeding that capability.
If we knew what great cost of effort it takes to displace complacency in our lives, if we knew what great achievements or world-changing things we’d accomplish… what things would we never allow in? And why do we continue to allow what we know about now?
It’s time to make a Stop Doing List and stop doing those things… Don’t get me wrong. Having Facebook on my cell phone is great. Having access to all people and all information all the time is very powerful. But what is it doing to my life? With that power comes great responsibility.
Undervaluing the true state of the case
No Comments »This is a post I wrote some time back, inspired by Scott Berkun in turn inspired by Ada Lovelace. I’m still today baffled by the perception we have of the complexity of problems and various technology implementations. It seems the Linchpins have some innate ability to breakdown things that are immeasurably complex into finite pieces that at their base just make sense. It’s almost like an “a-ha” moment, where someone on the team is able to explain something in such terms that everyone is immediately comforted by the newfound simplicity of what might have been a simply monstrous undertaking.
By way of Scott Berkun:
It is desirable to guard against the possibility of exaggerated ideas that might arise as to the powers of the Analytical Engine. In considering any new subject, there is frequently a tendency, first, to overrate what we find to be already interesting or remarkable; and, secondly, by a sort of natural reaction, to undervalue the true state of the case, when we do discover that our notions have surpassed those that were really tenable.
The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform. It can follow analysis; but it has no power of anticipating any analytical relations or truths.
This assessment is amazing and just as apt for today as when Ada Lovelace penned it. It’s the scientific view of what makes entpreneurialism work – the reason we ever have any new ideas is that we avoid the overrate/undervalue trap: seeing the “case” not as a pie that is slowly running out of slices, but as something that has the ability to make new pies.
With the huge mass of technology solutions available today, some may think that the world would run out of problems, something like:
As technology solutions approach infinite, problems approach zero.
In reality, it seems that for every technology, there are just as many (or more) problems, maybe problems are the result of some function of technology solutions available:
Problems = f (Solutions)
I often further wonder if we’ve missed the real fundamental here, some game-changing foundational solution, that for the sake of money or love, we’ve bypassed excitedly on our way to our first round of VC money or some IPO – the solution of which might have dramatically changed the basis for the function of itself.
Yeah, that means things like Craigslist and Twitter. There weren’t herds of technologists and scientists in a basement thinking up some advanced undertaking. A couple folks made something to solve a problem they had, and voila. A foundation-changing solution.
Are you building a foundation-changing solution? How is what you’re doing changing the function of solutions to problems? This is something you should know.
My New Rule for Outsourcing
No Comments »Much recently has been made of outsourcing, geoarbitrage and such, and I’ve had my ins-and-outs with it. I’ve come up with one new simple rule about outsourcing for entrepreneurs that I’m going to try to stick with:
If at all possible, only outsource things you can’t possibly do. If you’re going to outsource something you can do, if at all possible, make sure you can cover it with NET PROFIT.
Hey, we’re entrepreneurs here not a big-conglomo-corporation. We are starting businesses with nothing and scratching things together to see what clicks. It may or may not work. You may win, you will lose (some), and you might wind up being able to pay for what you spend. We are likely funding these efforts through money we make on other businesses or a day-job. The more money you spend on things you could do for free is more money that your new fledgling business will have to earn to pay it all back.
It will suck for a while as you may have to increase your area of expertise and you may not like it or be good at it. I am decent with numbers but inexperienced at accounting – but I don’t pay a book-keeper. It’s probably $400/month I’m saving. I do however pay an expert accountant to file and manage tax returns. There’s a difference – I can scratch together enough reasonable skill to enter everything into QuickBooks, but it’s unlikely I can give enough time to learn tax regulations to successfully file my own corporate taxes.
It does take time away from the wheelhouse of creativity and it does sap momentum. But we’re building on nothing but our own skill and labor here. So take my advice – until you can cover your outsourcing needs, be it virtual assistants or software developers, only spend on what you absolutely can’t do. Otherwise, only hire what you can cover out of NET PROFIT.
Collaborative Linchpin Art
No Comments »This is probably one of the biggest “aha” things I’ve had hit me in a while… but it might be completely evident to everyone else. It’s a longer post than normal, but I need the space to get the idea out there. I’m going to post it anyway. If you choose not to read it in full now, maybe it will show up in a book later on.
Scientist vs. Artist and “The Market” vs. “The Fringe”
In the context of linchpins and what it means to make “art”… it seems to me that there’s such a big difference between the scientist’s way of looking at something and the artist’s way (and the people who respect art) of looking at something. Maybe it has more to do with context and perspective than anything, but if you take music as an example… generally, there are two cases:
- There are people who only like music that a majority of other people like. (called “The Market”)
- There are people who don’t care what other people like and have their own opinions. (called “The Fringe” by “The Market”, but are probably just normal people who don’t want to be dragged along by “The Market”)
Taking music as art it’s pretty much impossible to be objective except in the case of The Market. If we both agree with The Market, then we’ll like the same things (within context and genre). If we are both of The Fringe, we will respect each other’s opinions on what to like and very possibly explore music recommendations from each other. Thus, if we are part of The Market we draw our objectivity from the market and if we are part of The Fringe, we draw our objectivity from our own opinions, experiences, and what is recommended to us by others.
However, in the context of the music industry, there were a select few who dictated to the masses what they needed to listen to (what made it to radio). In the past, these select few have been at the steering wheel of the industry; the gatekeepers of which artists and music was allowed to be commercialized. These people created a complex process and rules (and laws) for governing how things make it through to the masses. These processes were generally extremely lucrative for the owners of the process. This was counter-active to the real “art” and for years and years lots of great music was hidden from people who wanted (needed) it. The gatekeepers decided what the objective view was for their industry.
As these “laws” are destroyed through various means, The Fringe begins to approach (and overtake) The Market. The gatekeepers are smashed into a thousand pieces and even people who would like to still be led around by the nose after The Market are discovering that it’s no longer really cool to do that anymore. They don’t listen to the radio, they have an iPod. And like the music industry, we are in the process of seeing the same thing happen to video media (previously known as “television”).
The Art of the Process?
Moving along with the idea that Linchpins create art and art is what God meant people to create, whether it’s an art of business or an art of software, or manufacturing or whatever, it’s still what you’re on the planet to do. But maybe you’re in the business of governance and process and there’s an art to that. But I believe strongly that anything that moves you towards staying in a box is eventually going to become a bad thing (unless it changes). That’s the gist of being a Linchpin, understanding which boxes are good boxes and when to move to another box, or stay out of boxes entirely, at least for a while. The Theory of Constraints by itself is art, but the instant that it becomes the only way to do something is the instant that it becomes debilitating.
Let’s move the comparative into software – the process of building software has been exploded, eroded, and been basically eradicated by folks who have built great things without massive shops and departments and processes and governance. Think of the last handful of massive platforms that have hit and very few (if any) were built the way a scientist would build software, or better yet, the way most large companies build software. There were individuals or very small groups, constantly plugging at something, working loosely, code on their on computer kind of stuff, or just me and my ideas – eventually leading to something great.
And though every student of software development has heard ad nauseam that old fabled comparative of software to architecture or construction, it is the worst of failed comparatives. Every good artist knows or works to know their best “zone” (a la Zone from Drive) and what it takes to get that moving. And as they collaborate, they either consciously or unconsciously compromise some of that to gain the power of the group. The real key then to successful collaboration in the world of software is not the process itself, but the commitment of the individuals to work together in that process; in fact, we see that teams who together develop their own process are almost “superhuman” compared to those who try to impose some outside process on their team. Defining the parts of the process they will use is almost like creating an artistic identity for that particular team.
So, why do we constantly have this desire for governance and process when we can see that some of the greatest art is created outside of any of that? Because we are lazy and don’t want to do the work of thinking for ourselves – the Lizard Brain strikes again! (More on that in another post.)
The Art of Software
Software feels more like art than it ever has. If you’re in software, you need to get comfortable with that statement, like yesterday. Big Companies are struggling with how to move their software into art; ultimately they just can’t seem to equate the looseness of the process to revenue. (Maybe it’s because “The Market” is driving the bus that has the CEO and CFO in the front seat?) But when you think of art, you think of Basecamp, not SAP. You think of Twitter, not Oracle. I wonder if the revenue generation of software art has exceeded yet the revenues of Big Co software? Maybe a similar comparison is that Apple has passed Microsoft in value. Think of “revenue generation per employee hour”. Good grief, the Big Cos are getting their hats handed to them. If it takes 50,000 people to make art, maybe we need to reconsider? So, I got to thinking – some companies are better at selling shares of their company to Wall Street than they are at making Software Art.
My “aha” statement here is: Many people are using software only because the company building that software was best able to sell their shares to stockholders and rapidly put the “laws” in place around it. Just like listening to the radio, in many cases in software, we’ve been getting what The Market has given us!
When “The Fringe” Overtakes “The Market”
Eventually, the big “art” software will dramatically surpass Big Co software in revenues – there’s no denying that. It is unlikely that Big Cos will ever be comfortable enough with Linchpins to have them around very long. The ones that can embrace this and find ways to turn “collaborative Linchpin art” into revenue are the ones that survive. I say “survive” rather than “succeed” because the days are coming when a 2-man fly-by-night team will be able to overtake even the largest and most complicated software – and not in years, in months.
Next, the commercialization of the art (be it music, software, or whatever) is changing dramatically. People now can choose from a myriad of products and services and ultimately make their choices not on what has been spoon-fed to them, but by what they like, or moreover, what a Linchpin (The Fringe) has recommended. Soon, if not already, business who purchase software will be allowed the same freedom. Let’s take a look at Basecamp as an example. It’s the counterpoint to big software. People choose it because it has less. People choose it because they like the founders. People choose it because it almost feel like they just bought an Apple product. For years, we chose software based on a simple equation: The Most Features + The Cheapest Price = The Choice. Not any more.
So, What do we do Now?
If you’re an individual… go to the place where your deepest passion meets the world’s deepest need, to paraphrase Frederick Buechner. Be prepared. All of your life will drive you to this place – multiple wash-outs, failures and resets will all push to the place where you can create the art that the world needs. If that art is software, you’ll find ways to make it great without embracing every whim of The Market. If it’s making music, you’ll make it regardless of whether a big Nashville label signs your music or not – and you’ll work to figure out how to make what you love to do something that people <need> to listen to. If it’s cooking, you’ll wonder why you constantly try to create new dishes and perfect old ones and you’ll wonder why people come from miles around to get it. It might be confusing and circumstances will definitely weigh against you – but the world is now proving that people who embrace what their hearts drive them to do are the ones who are truly successful.
If you’re a business… big or small, you need to have Linchpins at your core. Multiple people, all called to do what they are doing, working together to create something remarkable that people want (need) – Collaborative Linchpin Art. If you’re creating Collaborative Linchpin Art, you can worry less about monetizing it – the raving customers will come. Just treat them nice when they get there and take of your Linchpins.
Closing deals on IM
2 Comments »It’s been like 6 years ago now, but I wrote a document on the “5 Levels of Collaboration” or something like that. Maybe there were 6 levels, but anyway, it was something about the nature of each level:
- A Written Letter
- Electronic Mail
- Instant Message
- Audio/Voice Interaction
- Video/Face-to-Face
I had written up a brief essay on how you move through these levels or combine them to get things done, which is generally different for different people. Some folks you call up because that’s how you get them. Others you text message or IM. I had also put something in there about the nature of certain interactions simply requiring face-to-face meetings.
Over time and experience, I’ve found that knowing which one to use where is pretty important. As a software developer, I used to be pretty one-sided. It seemed easier for me to e-mail, text, or IM than anything – I could do it in-line while I was coding. Later on, I realized that it was important that I get people on the phone – you just can’t tell a genuine a story on IM.
But finally – after my original “Levels of Collaboration” have been pillaged by the world of big software (and now made completely useless), I’ve started to see bridges between these things, where people simply use whatever is convenient. So now, closing deals on IM isn’t out of the question.
And to bring this full circle, closing deals on Facebook and Twitter is definitely in play. I kind of lump Twitter into a “IM” platform. I think Facebook is probably all of the above – it’s a platform that can host and foster any level of communication and probably any new level that is created.
What are you doing to change the way you communicate to create deeper relationships with your customers? How are you adapting to what channels they are “on”?
The Right People
No Comments »From “If You Don’t Make Waves You’ll Drown“: (I added some emphasis)
Someone once said that people are your greatest asset. That someone didn’t tell the whole story. People are not your greatest asset; the right people are. The wrong people are your greatest catastrophe, and mediocre people are your greatest drain on resources. Bearing this in mind, consider the following:
1. You will never build a great organization around marginal people. Working with weak people drains you. Investing in weakness at the expense of leveraging strength breaks your momentum, lowers morale, and misuses resources. It causes you to play endless games of catch-up.
Some of the people you’re retaining shouldn’t be on board in the first place, because they’re just plain bad at what they do. And even if you manage to invert bad you don’ get good: You just get not bad, and how far do you think you can take your organization with a troupe of “not bad” bunglers? It’s time to face reality about your people and to stop seeing them as you’d like them to be. Some of them have too far to go. They’re failing, and even if you improve them the opposite of failing is not excellent; it’s merely passing. And as I recall, passing grades in schools started with a D-, and you rarely, if ever, bring a D- up to an A. The lesson? You cannot build an elite company if you spend priority time with problem people. Instead, you must spend priority time with “potential” people. Otherwise it’s like going to a horse race and betting your life savings on a nag, just to improve its self-image; seemingly noble but ultimately stupid.
That “betting your life savings on a nag… seemingly noble but ultimately stupid” really resonates with me. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you shouldn’t try to change anyone. Offer them the leadership style that fits their work ethic, stand back and see what happens. If it improves, great – if not, get them off the bus as fast as you can.
5 Important things I learned from “The Dukes of Hazzard”
No Comments »
1) Take a deep breath during critical moments.
The show was notorious for going to commercial right when stuff was getting really crazy – the Dukes would be just about finished, finally cornered by the bad guys, and Waylon Jennings would come on and say something like, “Boy I tell you, the day they passed out good luck, Bo and Luke must have been out fishing.”
Sometimes we struggle so much in crucial situations, looking for a way out that we miss out on some extremely valuable lessons in there. I’m reminded of a number of rash decisions made in the heat of the moment where I just didn’t pick up on the “big picture” view. Like Seth Godin’s “The Dip” – there are times when we need to bail, but we just keep kickin’, trying to get through to the next thing. So, take a “commercial break” sometimes. Listen to The Balladeer comment on your situation and see if you’re making the right choices.
2) Some people can do illegal stuff and still be “the good guys”, but that probably ain’t you.
Hey, everyone knew the Dukes’ were runnin’ moonshine. But they had two things going for them: their battle against the corruption of Boss Hogg, and always trying to help people. I figure you pretty much can’t go wrong if you’re trying to help people. But fighting corruption is another thing entirely. And funding it with some illegal activity – well, in today’s transparent society, that would just take the cake. I often wonder how much more they would have been able to do against Hogg if they didn’t have the whole moonshine thing hanging over them…
Frankly, I don’t think we see much of this scenario in today’s world – notwithstanding the people out there who illegally smuggle medicine into impoverished and diseased countries, or people who illegally smuggle Bibles into China. But neither one of those activities are like moonshine. So it’s best to steer clear of these types of activities and the the people associated with them. Believe me, getting sued sucks, even when you are right.
3) Your family might be eccentric, but you can and need to count on them.
We’re a long ways from the close-knit families of the past. Times have changed – kids leave the small town for careers out in the world. But one thing I think we should hold on to is the value of the family legacy, whatever it might be. It’s easy to kick and struggle against hanging around too long, and never having any real responsibility for your own person. But it’s another thing entirely to run off and leave all that epic story behind.
The hard-charging A-personality types of this day and age often say “screw you guys, I’m leaving” to their family back home, cursing them as “backwards” or just not “with it”. And that certainly may be the case. But there are nuggets of wisdom and legacy in that history, something that you don’t want to leave behind. And often I’ve found that my interaction with family on that level was as much for them as it was for me. Yeah, it’s humbling and often severely dysfunctional. But don’t forget your past; find the nuggets of wisdom in your family legacy.
4) Even people named “Cooter” can play a crucial role.
Especially for us driven types, we often look at life through the blinders of our own self-promotion. It’s sad to say it that way, but generally speaking if someone isn’t actively involved in promoting our own agenda, we may completely dismiss interacting with them at all. This is just plain wrong.
So, this one is to the dirty mechanic tow-truck driver, to the grocery store bagger, to the elderly person still trying to drive a car well beyond the ability to do it safely, to the cube-dweller who manages to be happy with a 9-to-5… you are important and you have an important part to play. To the type-A who almost can’t stand to sit still long enough to even say “hi” to any one of the above, here’s a personal quote I’ve been working into my life to help: “Life is just too short not to interact.”
5) Look out for people from out of town in unmarked sedans.
It never failed that the Dukes’ primary enemies would be out-of-towners dressed in generic clothes and driving some generic 4-door sedan (that would later be crashed of course). The people cast in these roles you could almost “feel” were bad guys and had some deceitful motive on how to steal something precious from Hazzard County and its residents.
I’m fairly appalled at how many times in my own experience I’ve gone against my intuition and trusted the family jewels with one of these types. If your gut tells you “stay away” then you probably should. A million things can go haywire based on the slight chance that your intuition is incorrect. Why risk it? Don’t take a chance with what’s important to you – trust your gut and take your time when it comes to building deep relationships. There’s a lot to lose and only a little to gain.