Item #41: She Didn't Know Jack

Through the years she met many.
Through work and through play.
And they each taught her something along the way.
Through Kerry and Justin, David and Jen.
She knew of music, flowers, cooking and Zen.
Through others she knew of confidence and smarts.
Of frankness and tact. Business and Arts.
Because of Jenny and Gloria, David and Jill.
She knew of the way when there was the will.
There was Tammy and Sheryl, Lisa and Mandy.
Katie and Cathy, Doreen and even Andy.
This is just getting started; this could go on and on.
Each person had shaped her, helped make her strong.
She knew so many people, and many very well.
Yet she reminded herself daily and she never forgot.
That with all who she did know, with all the known fact.
It was always still the case that she didn’t know Jack.

Item #40: The Phenomenon of Rebecca Black

The recently circulating music video made by Rebecca Black, Friday, has at the time of this writing has received more than 68 million views on YouTube. That is incredible.

Rebecca Black’s Friday is an incredibly low budget music video production for a song called Friday, ‘sung’ by Rebecca Black. The lyrics can only be described as pedantic, the film common and ‘done’. There is no real value in this video: no musical talent, no entertainment appeal, no artistic element. Yet, it is a YouTube viral phenomenon. Rebecca Black is a YouTube viral phenomenon.

Or is she?

In watching this video and knowing a little bit about it’s making i.e.: funded by her parents, a few things are clear.

Rebecca Black is one confident little teenager.

Rebecca Black is one resourced little teenager.

Rebecca Black is one risk-taking little teenager.

This experience could go a couple of ways for her: the experience makes a fool of her for a short span of time and then is promptly forgotten, while she goes down in history infamously as ‘the girl who did that awful video back in 2011’.

Or, it could go another way. Her buzz continues, reporting in news media all over the world continues, everyone continues talking about her, she grows rich in the process and then somehow this spins into something bigger. She gets recognized as one with notoriety, with influence and therefore with commercial potential. Someone picks her up and begins working with her to develop her 'career'.

Either way, for plan or for fluke, for better or for worse, Rebecca Black is very likely to translate this buzz situation into ‘something’, into her start on the path to ‘be somebody’.

This is arguably the phenomenon of Rebecca Black. A confident, resourced, risk-talking little teenager.

Or is it?

Perhaps this is nothing more than the phenomenon of society in 2011.

A society that values and rewards confidence, without any criteria. Unmerited confidence. Confidence without substance. Confidence without talent. Blind, ignorant confidence.

A society that values and rewards resources, without any criteria. Resources mis-used. Resources mis-applied. Resources carelessly distributed.

A society that values and rewards risk-taking without any criteria. Risk-taking without calculation. Risk-taking without integrity. Risk-taking without consideration of impact.

This is the society that drove those YouTube music video views to over 68 million.

This is the society that has made Rebecca Black one of the top stories of March 2011.

This is the society that has turned Rebecca Black into a ‘known’ figure.

This is the society that may very likely make Rebecca Black rich and famous.

Perhaps Rebecca Black is not the phenomenon here. Perhaps it’s just the opposite. Rebecca Black is just a teenager with dubious talent. At this point anyway. For now. Who knows what she might have been with real training and meaningful assistance. This value and reward society is lending Rebecca Black is unfortunately not in response to her talent. It is in response only to her confidence, her resources and her risk-taking. It’s our society today that is the phenomenon. The things we value, we reward, we deem as the basis for success. That is the phenomenon.

Item #39: Make Fresh Tracks

My life philosophies. Now available in video format. This was fun.

Best to watch in small window. Resolution lost on upload for some reason.

Item #38: Why the Hatter is Mad

My daughter asked me the other day what The Mad Hatter’s background was, "Where did he come from Mummy?". A very reasonable question I think. And so I went in search of answers.

To understand who a person is, one can seek to understand what he came from. The interesting thing though is that the reverse is also true. One can understand what a person came from in understanding who he is.

So, who is The Mad Hatter? He loves to dance, has orange hair, wears hats (obviously), loves making hats, wears make-up, as well as a suit. He lives in Wonderland, loves Alice and not The Red Queen. And he goes crazy when his hat is not on his head.

Most essentially, The Mad Hatter is a hat fanatic. His hat fanaticism could be seen as evidence that he seeks to cover his head. But why might he want to cover his head? We know that when his hat is removed from his head, he goes crazy. So maybe he wants to cover his head because he fears his craziness. Maybe he covers his head because he doesn't want to 'lose’ his head. A fear of his which is likely further entrenched with The Red Queen constantly threatening to take everyone's head off all across Wonderland.

And were this true, it would be a good choice of course for Hatter to choose Wonderland to live. Wonderland is a place where one 'can' in fact lose one's head. Many do, at the orders of The Red Queen. There is some social acceptance at least for the possibility of ‘losing one’s head’. So Wonderland might actually be a socially safe environment for a head-losing-fearer like Hatter.

As an aside, maybe The Red Queen isn't so mean after all; perhaps she is merely voicing encouragement for the losing of one's head.

But, back to Hatter. Perhaps Hatter's hat provides him with some extra protection against the risk of losing his head. Hatter also wears make-up. Perhaps his make-up disguises him so that should he lose his hat, and hence his head, he will not be recognized! Thus protecting him additionally from potential social condemnation from having lost his head.

This has all the signs of a case of classic childhood repression. Hatter was simply forced to grow up too soon! Even as he tries to comply by the wearing of the manly adult suit, Hatter is a child living inside a man's body, burdened with his 'crazy' inclinations and his need to protect himself from them. Instead of fully embracing and integrating this expressive, imaginative self, he carries it around as though it is a dangerous weapon that must be sheathed: 'handled with care'. His Hattering serves a twofold purpose: one part defense mechanism to ward off said 'craziness' and, a second part outlet for imaginative expression. Also, his Hattering offers a commonality with which to bond with fear-stimulator, The Red Queen, who is herself “of such a bulbous head” that she and Hatter are able to connect excitedly on hat design possibilities.

So there we have it! The mysterious epidemiology of the Mad Hatter's hat fanaticism: solved. A child with a wondrous imagination that was re-interpreted and misinterpreted, likely by some parental authority figure as ‘craziness’. A child who learned to fear this part of himself, and thus began a lifetime of carefully hiding it away and protecting himself from it. Ultimately this falsely labeled ‘craziness’ sublimated into an outlet for both defense and expression – Hats. And thus was born The Mad Hatter. My daughter will be pleased to have this clarity.

And perhaps a message to us all:
Unleash the crazy. Remove the hat. Indeed: Off With Your Head.

Item #37: Cautious Listening

I think there is often a difference between what people say and what is the truth.

Recently I sat ‘behind the glass’ listening to people talk about a service they are loyal to (my word for consumers is 'people' because calling people consumers objectifies them and makes it easy to disregard what they have to say). This group of people spoke for 45 minutes, unprompted, unanimously and universally about this service. What it gave them. Why they valued it. What expectations they had of it. When they use it. Why they use it. How they feel about it. What’s good about it. Even where they see room for improvement.

During this time, not once, did even one person, at any point, mention that they were a loyal frequenter of this service because of anything to do with price. No one said: “because it is cheap”, or “because I get the best price there”. No one even ventured into the territory of ‘value’, saying “well, for what I get from this service compared to what I pay for it, I find it affordable”. Price never came up. Affordable never came up. Value never even came up.

But a little further into the discussion, when these same people were then asked what might incent (I know incent is not really a word, but it should be) them to try out a new, different, alternative service, they all unanimously, universally, consistently, said, “a special price offer”, “something for free”, “a price-oriented promotion”.

My internal truth meter started ringing off the hook. I just don't buy it (pardon the pun). And it signifies just one situation where we really have to listen with caution.

Just because someone says it, doesn't make it true.

Item #36: Re-Framing the Holding Pattern

Over the years, I have experienced phases in my life when I felt ‘stuck’. At least that’s how I used to refer to it: “stuck”. Then I shifted to a more positive term of reference for these phases and called them “holding patterns”. That offered a somewhat more optimistic perspective.

But I have evolved the reference yet again. Now I refer to these phases as “observational periods of understanding”. I hope you know what I am referring to. You’ve likely had the experience, of one phase, or many phases in life when nothing much seems to be happening; you’re not unhappy, but things are ‘still’. They used to frustrate me, these phases, and often I’d leap into some mode of action that inevitably proved to be a mistake. Now, I rephrase my experience when I’m in one of those phases. I call it my “observational period of understanding” and here’s what I do:

- I acknowledge that something is probably germinating within: the seeds of some change to come. I relax into that. It’s comforting and makes the phase very bearable.

- I focus much more specifically on the way I feel as I go through every little tiny bit of each day. If it is truly to be an observational period of understanding, then I need to observe closely and I need to seek understanding.

- I accept contradiction within. Inevitably in these phases, I have two parts of me battling one another. One part is this ‘harbinger of truth’ voice: the one whispering the rational “likely reality”. The other is the power that resides in my unsophisticated stomach, otherwise known as my gut feeling. And that part lives in the world of intuition, of ideal, of no rational explanation. I let them both exist and draw no conclusions about who is the superior intelligence.

- I wait. Honestly, I just wait. An observational period of understanding cannot be rushed. Its path cannot be drawn; it must unfold.


Historically, when in the midst of one of these phases, I’ve found myself wondering if I would ever emerge. Inevitably, emergence does happen. It just can’t be planned. You just don’t know when it will happen. But one day, clarity arrives and sits softly on your shoulder.

And then, once clarity is sitting softly on your shoulder, you realize this experience was in fact much more accurately described as "an observational period of understanding", than it was a phase of “stuck”.

Item #35: A Celebration of Christmas

Organized religion, most notably Christianity, in Canada continues to suffer declines in adherence and attendance. We are increasingly becoming a people who identify themselves as spiritual but not religious. In 2009, 28% of Canadians cited ‘no religious affiliation’. And estimates say somewhere around only 11% who are of Christian affiliation attend church once a week.

At this time of year however, Canada celebrates Christmas. It is a monumentally important religious event, the birth of Jesus Christ, the central figure of Christianity. But in Canada, while we are not a religious people, we celebrate Christmas in as committed a way as ever before.

Let’s be honest. Undeniably, the Christmas we celebrate is not about the star of Bethlehem, the three wise men or the birth of Christ our saviour.

The Christmas we celebrate in Canada is characterized by: the giving of gifts, socializing with food and alcohol and downtime at home with family and loved ones.

Imagine that. In this day and age, we run from store to store, fill our arms with boxes and bows, and watch our bank accounts run low, in the name of Christmas. Oh… the crass commercial consumerism.

In this day and age, we host friends, neighbours and colleagues, fill their hands with glasses of wine or egg nog, feed them full of canapés, and talk, or maybe dance, in the name of Christmas. Oh… the gluttony, the mindlessness.

In this day and age, we put on the fire, stay in our pajamas, curl up under the blankets, cuddle up to one another, and watch movies, read the newspaper or sleep, maybe even for an entire day, in the name of Christmas. Oh… the sloth, the laziness.

This is the Christmas so many of us celebrate nowadays. This is the Christmas that has been systemically preserved and sanctioned. But why? Why is this so? With the decline of organized religion, what is the reason Christmas even is?

Because we need it. We really need it. We need it more than ever.

Because we are generous beings. We like to show our love. We like to make people smile. And we like to give gifts, in whatever form. We like the protection of having a sanctioned time to give. That’s Christmas.

Because we are social beings. We like to let loose. We like to eat. We like to talk to our friends. They make us laugh. Or understand us best. We like the protection of having a sanctioned time to be social. That’s Christmas.

Because we are loving beings. We need to be able to relax into the comforts of our homes. We need to be able to curl up close to each other. We need to rest, together. We like the protection of having a sanctioned time to be loving. That’s Christmas.

We need Christmas. We really need it. We need it more than ever.

So go ahead everybody. Celebrate Christmas. Happy Holidays.

Item #34: Good Learning from a Bad Movie

I watched Eat Pray Love a few weeks ago. It was not a very good movie, though I quite enjoyed the book, but regardless, I can call out three good messages in the movie for further consideration. One is just a good piece of insight and two others are actually little life exercises you might want to try out for yourself.

#1: The Texan Richard talks to Julia Roberts, who has just arrived in India in search of what she refers to as “just a little peace”. His response: “To get to the castle, you have to swim the moat”. He is explaining a basic truth in life in my opinion. In my experience, if you want real accomplishment of any kind: personal maturity, career achievement, inner peace, emotional growth, you’ve got to first expend the energy and battle the monsters along the path. My guess is that the greatest riches await the ones who swim the most treacherous moats.

#2: In a conversation with her New York friend, who had recently had a baby, they discuss what is inside ‘the box under the bed’. For the friend with the new baby, the box under her bed held little items she had collected and saved as she was dreaming of the baby: pieces of patterned fabric, little pieces of baby’s clothing, small toys. Julia Roberts responds that ‘the box under her bed’ contains travel-related images: photos, region guides, maps of faraway places to visit. This ‘box under the bed’ thing may just be an interesting tool to uncover personal insight. What would be contained in ‘the box under your bed’ should you have one? And what does that illuminate about the things that matter to you most?

#3: Finally, while in Rome, some new friends ask Julia Roberts what “her one word would be”. She thinks about “daughter”, “wife”, “girlfriend”, and concludes that none of them fit for her. She proposes “writer” as her word, because in the movie that is her vocation. One of the new Roman friends tells her that is “what she does, not who she is” and therefore not the best choice as ‘her one word’. Prompts me to think this might be another thoughtful thing to consider. What would be your ‘one word’? The one word that is not what you do, but who you are?

Anyway, hope you might have a little fun with these thoughts. And at the very least we know that even a bad movie might yield some good!

Item #33: What Broken Social Scene Teaches About Collaboration

I saw Broken Social Scene in concert recently; it was a private concert and I was one of only about 30 people in attendance. I was up close and personal with the band, and able to closely observe the way they interact with each other: their words, their body language, and their facial expressions.

They are known to be a collaborative band, often referred to as a collective. They bring in new members on a regular basis, and experiment with alternative musical styles. This situation was no different. They had two opera singers on stage with them from the local opera company essentially delivering a rock opera experience.

Broken Social Scene does some things differently. They exhibit behaviours which I believe are hallmarks of Collaboration. And the key thing is that these behaviors all appear to happen fluidly as though it’s just the way it goes on a regular basis.

1) Their actual physical positions occupied on stage change throughout the show. The lead singer moves from middle to side, to back of stage, from song to song. Guitarists move from left stage to right stage. Everyone moves around. There doesn’t appear to be a rigid physical position for each or any band member.
2) There is no hierarchy of role. The lead vocal in one song becomes the back-up vocal in the next song, and vice versa. At one point, the “back-up” singer sang vocal lead and the “lead singer” was not even on stage. The hierarchy of “a lead singer” and “a back-up singer” does not appear to exist. A singer is a singer.
3) New members are always coming in. This is probably a crucial part to nurturing the collaborative culture they have. Bringing in new members fosters the embracing of new perspectives within the group, regularly. But it also would foster that interpersonal culture they seem to have, of working together, abandoning hierarchy and the rigidity of role.
4) Members have the technical skill to play multiple roles. Not only do physical positions occupied move around, not only does hierarchical role move around, but also the members actually technically have the skill and ability to play multiple roles. The guitarist sings vocals, and plays keyboard and jumps on the drum set. And same for other members, who, at best, are able to technically step in and fill different roles in the band, and at the very least, are able to ‘understand’ more deeply roles other than their own primary one.
5) Leadership is actually ‘modeling’ Collaboration. The last observation may actually seem counter to collaboration but I don’t think it is. Kevin Drew and Brendan Canning have “led” the band since its inception. When they are on stage, you may deduce that Kevin has some leadership but you might not pick that up about Brendan. But if you look a little closer, you will see a style with both of them that signals a respectful, even relaxed kind of leadership that isn’t about giving direction, its about setting an example for the qualities of collaboration detailed here. These two model the tenets of collaboration outlined above and hence likely have “led” the band in securing its place as a band with a culture of collaboration at its core.

Implications for Fostering Collaboration in the Workplace:

- Change Physical Position: At work, do you find you often use the same meeting room, sit in a similar position within that meeting room, sit yourself close to the same people, have people come to your office for meetings versus going to theirs? Do you or others gravitate to similar recurring physical places at work? Mix that up. A change in physical position changes perspective, often only in little ways, but it contributes to keeping us open-minded, sharp and fresh in reacting to new situations.
- Erase Hierarchy of Role: This to me is the future of work. Just as a singer is a singer, it’ll be important in work that a writer is a writer. Sure, each writer has different levels of experience and likely different natural areas of strength. But a writer must be a writer. Hierarchy is redundant in this day and age. It slows us down and keeps us working in old, stuck ways. Consider your office workers as a pool of talent, and learn to apply that talent where it’s best suited. That will be the difference between leadership and management. Management needs hierarchy. Leadership doesn’t.
- Bring New Members In: This is such an immediate opportunity for growth of collaboration in the workplace. Bring new members into projects. This will require collaboration within the team while also bringing in new perspectives. Here’s the trick on bringing in new members: Keep the majority of the team consistent, so that the new member is a ‘spice’ in the recipe not the flour. And for this to work, no hierarchy and strong leadership works best.
- Technical Capability across Multiple Roles: Teams might be able to work more collaboratively with members who, while they may be specialists, have a generalist understanding. Collaboration works best when the writer has an understanding of art direction, and the ability to think strategically, is technologically current and has a good client service attitude. While the primary specialty may be in writing, it works better when members have some ability in the functions of the other team members as well.
- Leadership means Fostering Collaboration: And lastly, if collaboration really matters, and is the key to the future of work, then leadership must be about fostering that collaboration. Leadership becomes less about directing, and definitely much less about managing and much more about modeling. Modeling the tenets of good collaboration and building the infrastructure to foster that.

Item #32: Measuring Success

I want to talk briefly about ‘Measuring Success’. I'm not going to share much opinion, just going to plant some thoughts and ask some questions.

It strikes me that there are a number of different possible measures of success in living life:

Optional Success Measure: Material Gain
Many people measure success in life by their accumulation of material goods: a big house, luxury cars, expensive clothes, jewelry, home electronics etc… Success is in having the best, the biggest, the most expensive. Here I think of Donald Trump.

Optional Success Measure: Financial Wealth
Different from above, this is about those who measure success by having the most net worth i.e.: having the highest asset value, or the most money in the bank. These people may live humble lives, materially (inexpensive car, small house etc…), but they have assets in great amount. Here I think of ‘The Millionaire Next Door’.

Optional Success Measure: Incredible Experiences
These are people I know who sacrifice the accumulation of wealth and/ or the acquisition of material items in order to obtain experiences: people who have traveled the world; people who have gone back to school, sometimes multiple times; people who pursue spiritual journeys; people who put priority on culinary experiences, or invest themselves extensively in recreational hobbies. Here I think of one of my good friends, who has visited almost every country on almost every continent of our globe.

Optional Success Measure: A Model Parent
Again, I can think of people I know who put money on the back burner, and make earning level of less importance, in order to be at home more, to spend more time with their kids, to invest more heavily in school or other children’s activities. These people coach, volunteer, tutor, and are generally very deeply involved in their children’s lives. Here I think of many of our neighbourhood community pillars.

Optional Success Measure: A Good Partner
Frankly, I can’t quickly reference very much of this. But I can think of one or two people I’ve known throughout the years who consider their own success in life and as an individual as gauged by the degree to which they were a loving, respectful, supportive and committed partner and to which they were an active part of a loving, respectful, supportive and committed partnership situation. Here, I think of Paolo Coelho, a great writer and vocally devoted partner to his wife.

Optional Success Measure: Professional Achievement
These are the people I know who strive for recognition and advancement in the workplace. It may not be about earning more money, or earning a lot of money, but these people are very committed to their profession and want recognition, appreciation and a sense of forward movement in that profession. For them, it’s not about amount of earnings, but it is about rising through the ranks and achieving a level of recognized authority. Here I think of politicians; these are often not particularly highly paid functions, but they are of some perceived authority.

Optional Success Measure: Creative Expression
I think this an easy one to explain. This is the place where artists and dreamers reside, I think. These are the people who pay little to no heed to financial gain, professional achievement, or the accumulation of wealth. These people not only live to create, often they just have to create to live. What becomes of their creation is often an afterthought or never even conceived of. The list of references here is endless: Leonard Cohen, Van Gogh, Woody Allen.

It’s curious, all these possible optional measures of success. Have I missed any? Do they all in their own way lead to happiness? Result in a satisfaction with life? Are they each objectively good measures of success? Is the most important thing only that it is a personally determined measure of success? What’s your key measure of success? What’s mine?

Item #31: Change. Part 2.

In my last post, I talked about Change. And I predicted there would be a Part 2. In fact, it turns out that I do have reason to continue the Change theme. I've been prompted to think about Change a little differently, and brings me to this post: About When Things Actually Don’t Change.

A Situation:

Let’s look at a common Change situation, one that often occurs in the professional setting. A company's management implements a restructuring, people leave, new people join, departments shift, processes shift, offices move… change, change, change. The immediate associated feelings experienced by remaining employees are generally varied and contradictory.

- Feelings of Hope: Things are happening! Good things may follow!
- Feelings of Fear: Do I like these changes? Will they be good for me? Am I safe?
- Feelings of Uncertainty: What is really going on? I see lots happening, but what does it all really mean?

These Change feelings – the hope, the fear, the uncertainty – can take on positive associations or negative associations depending on the ultimate ‘outcome’ of the Change.

This is where Change lies at its essence, and this is why humans have such difficulty with the notion of Change.

If the company's management restructuring, the influx and outflux of people, the processes and physical location shifts, if all that Change, translates into an outcome that is considered better i.e.: beneficial and improved, then the associations we will have with that experience of Change and the associated feelings will be positive.

If the restructuring, the influx and outflux of people, the processes and physical location shifts, all the change, translates into no discernibly improved outcome, then this is the kind of situation that can paint ‘Change’ with a negative brush. Without a positive outcome, we form negative associations with the feelings of the Change experience; the hope, the fear and the uncertainty, become re-interpreted and experienced as deflation, anxiety and discomfort.

So… What Happens When Change Doesn’t Happen? Feelings that could be potentially become associated with positive experiences become re-interpreted as hallmarks of something negative. If, on the other side of Change, there is no discernible improvement, the result is a reduced expectation that good things will happen in the future, because the anticipation for good things to happen in the past was disappointed.

What’s the lesson around Change? I think there are two lessons.

1. As a company, for example, it’s best to proactively ensure that Change results in beneficial improved outcomes. When making Change, don't commit to the process, commit to the end-game.

2. As a person riding Change, in order to manage Change, and in order to be able to handle future waves of Change-related hope, fear and uncertainty, there is a way to look more philosophically at Change. Because even in the midst of seemingly ‘No Change’, there actually is Change, at a potential and more personal level.

Item #30: Change. Part 1.

I’ve been going through a lot of change lately. And change is always a difficult thing. Humans have a strong reaction to change – it creates uncertainty and turmoil. I’ve learned a few things of late as a result:

I’ve Learned: Rational and Emotional
In the midst of difficult times, it’s easy to let emotional reactions carry us away. Makes sense: they are the significantly stronger part of us. Someone once told me our rational side is like the driver sitting atop the emotional elephant. The driver (rationality) can try to direct things, but when the elephant (emotion) decides something, the driver has no hope of controlling it. Just knowing that is half the battle. I’ve found it useful to sanction the two sides to their own spaces. When the emotional reactions come on, I break them apart and challenge them one by one. Is what I am feeling really true? How likely is it that it is really true? When I challenge myself to really pick apart the nature of my emotional thoughts, it’s easy to see very quickly that they are awry. Other times, I have to simply decide to let the rational win.

Example: My house is for sale. I had a moment of overwhelming emotion to the whole thing. I arrived home one evening, the house lights looked beautiful, the house looked beautiful and all I could think of were the wonderful memories of people and times spent in that house. But I caught myself. And challenged my thinking. I realized that I could re-create that emotional space somewhere else. I realized that the beautiful space doesn’t reside in a structure; it resides in me. And all romantic notions aside, looking to the rational truth, I can’t afford the house anymore. The upkeep and the investment that is required are beyond me, and the house has become an unfortunate burden. That’s the reality. Often it’s important to experience the emotion, then put it aside and let the rational win out.

I’ve Learned: Thoughts are Not Facts
When change is underway, the human condition is predisposed to try to make sense of things, to seek to understand. So we play through all the scenarios in our minds for what might be happening, or what might happen, to try to sort it all out. We tell ourselves the boss is probably thinking x, y and z and that’s why he did that. We decide that the ex must be doing a, b and c and thinking d, e and f. The problem is that we end up drawing all kinds of conclusions based on our own solo evaluations. And we forget that we arrived at those conclusions based only on our thoughts in the first place.

The kicker on this one is that most of the time we are wrong in our evaluations. Most of the time, the boss didn’t do half the things you thought he did, and his thoughts were 180 degrees away from where you thought they were. Ditto on the ex. And yet, you drew conclusions based on inaccuracies. Thoughts are not facts and that’s important to remember in tough times.

I’ve Learned: Leap vs. Logic
Finally, I’ve also learned that change cannot be conquered. It happens. It’s going to come at you when you least expect it sometimes, and it’s got a momentum all it’s own. In an effort to gain control, we try to plan, we try to organize, we create contingency plans. And this is a healthy approach. It’s responsible. It’s mature. It’s smart. But sometimes, many times, it doesn’t work. Someone once said, ‘in the midst of all our planning, life happens’. That’s not the direct quote, but it’s true. Sometimes you can do all the planning, and rational ‘thinking’ in the world, and you’ll still come up empty-handed for answers. Sometimes, you have to roll with it, see what happens and leap. Logic is a wonderful thing when it works, but it fails us, often. And in those situations, we just have to trust that we can leap, and that we will land.

I called this posting “Change: Part 1” because it’s an ongoing experience and I’m sure there’ll be a “Change: Part 2” posting somewhere down the line. Maybe even a Part 3 and 4 too.

Item # 29: In Defence of Idealism

Daniel Durrant (@ddrrnt) recently blogged about Super Empowered Hopeful Individuals (SEHIs), a breed he seems to have appreciation for, and believes doesn’t exist. Super Empowered Hopeful Individuals are, (sorry to over-simplify and paraphrase), individuals driven to 'understand' and 'overcome' in the workplace. I’m going to explain the role that I believe Idealism plays in the whole mix.

In this world, we have Idealists and we have Realists.

Most people prefer to associate themselves with being a Realist. It signifies a level-headedness, a grounded-ness, a maturity. Realists, it is believed, have a ‘better handle on things’. Realists are more highly regarded, hence nurtured and encouraged, hence there are many many more of them. The vast majority of people are Realists.

Idealists on the other hand routinely buck what seems obvious, easy or rational. By their very nature they shoot for the moon, time and time again, enduringly motivated by the prospect or potential to make great things happen: to achieve an Ideal.

What exactly is an Ideal?

Ideals have gotten a bad rap. People believe that Ideals are called Ideals because they are essentially unattainable. But really, if something is Ideal, then by definition it means that it has met a wide range of criteria in a near perfect state. It means that something has happened to please enough people or situations, to resolve enough needs or to create enough enjoyment that its achievement is deemed to be near perfect i.e.: Ideal.

So why do Ideals need Idealists?

Because Idealists are Super-Empowered, Hopeful Individuals. To be an Idealist means to be eternally hopeful, to unceasingly believe that Ideals are attainable, that there is forever the prospect or potential to make great things happen. To be an Idealist means to be super-empowered because in a world of realists, it is really tough to inspire people of even the possibility of achieving Ideals and even more difficult to bring those Ideals to life.

Daniel Durrant also suggests that the secret within the super-empowered hopeful individual is an ability to rise above fear and anger to embrace and then live understanding. This is critical. Fear and anger are the foundations of realism. Understanding and then hope are the foundations for Idealism.

I call on the Idealists. And the Ideals. Every project has potential to be a great thing. Every person has the potential for greatness within. A relationship can be the canvas for a great future.

Item #28: The Human Revolution

Three things I came across this week lead me to believe that we are sitting on the verge of, or perhaps even in the midst of, a Revolution.

The first thing I noted was the advertising-for-art ‘vandalism’ act that took place in downtown Toronto on Monday, August 23. A group of activists decided to take the advertising engine and its deemed intrusive presence into their own hands, and replace it with what they believe is more valuable in today’s society and to today’s inhabitants of that society: Art. Called the Public Ad Campaign, the initiative is “committed to reclaiming public space from what the campaign contends are illegal advertisers, and filling it with guerilla art.” An article in the Toronto Star notes, “Pedestrians marveled at the pieces of artwork.”

Next I stumbled across an article in the Globe and Mail Business Magazine referencing an interesting new Masters Program offered by the Ontario College of Art and Design (OCAD): Master of Design in Strategic Foresight and Innovation. This course program aims to educate professionals on the kind of human-centered design thinking required to create a socially, emotionally and ecologically supportive and sustainable environment: physically, professionally and culturally (my mouthful, not theirs). The course program strives to educate via the theories, philosophies and practical thinking models that will help individuals create working and community systems that can achieve that kind of balance. This also seemed to signal new priorities for a new society.

And finally, fascinatingly, an article in Now Toronto, titled Nature is Genius, literally jumped off the page and grabbed my attention. The article asserts the importance of understanding and being guided by the principles of what I refer to as ‘Divine Design’. Divine Design is a concept that has enthralled me for years. In my definition, it honors the simple incredible brilliantness of natural biology: the way the human body is built and works, the way the natural plant and animal kingdoms function, adapt and thrive. If you stop and think about it, it’s simply spectacular. Biomimicry is the coined term for the area of study that embraces this, aiming to look to the magic of Divine Design as a source of knowledge for our own societal survival and growth. With the subtitle: “Bring on nature’s design firm”, the article also notes, “In this philosophy, nature is the mentor and model, we are the students.”

These three encounters converged for me this week, and pointed to the emergence of a set of new values and priorities for society and its inhabitants today.

We are coming off an extended period, since perhaps the 1850’s, where these have not been the topics of conversation or concern. We're coming off times of assembly lines, labour systems, and mass production, where people have been tools and output has been tangible. We're coming off the Industrial Revolution.

Times have changed. Dramatically. Now is a time of the global village, common wealth, and sustainability, where people are instruments of change and the output is multi-faceted, experiential and idea-oriented.

Now is a time of Human Revolution, and it is in direct contrast to the Industrial Revolution. Where that was a Revolution characterized by machination, intellect, and industry, the Human Revolution is characterized by humanity, emotional, social, and ecological experiences, art and design.

It's very exciting.

Item #27: Life Opportunity Costs

When I was in university, I started out as an Economics major (that changed very quickly, but that’s another story). A concept that intrigued me and has stuck with me since those classes, is that of Opportunity Cost; it’s an economic concept, but, for me, it has always been just as much a life concept.

'Opportunity Cost' technically refers to the actual ‘cost’ of one decision over another. So if you have $1000 and you decide to spend it instead of save it, you lose the interest you would have acquired had you saved it.

Opportunity Costs, however, are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs. (wikipedia.org)

In my mind, these are the more important (more life, less economics) components of Opportunity Costs: the qualitative ones, the emotional, personal costs.

Here’s how Life Opportunity Costs work:

▪ You have $1000. You can decide to spend it or not. There is an opportunity cost with every decision, worth evaluating.
▪ Let’s say you decide to spend it. Well that’s $1000 gone, money that could’ve been saved. Had it been saved, you would’ve accrued interest. That’s the obvious monetary opportunity cost.
▪ But had you saved it, you might have felt a bit more responsible for having made the restrained choice. Had you saved it, you’d have lived through denying yourself immediate gratification, which may or may not give you a sense of personal satisfaction. Had you saved it, you would’ve had a nest egg in event of emergency need. You might’ve felt an increased sense of life comfort knowing you have that nest egg. This nest egg might have made you feel more liberated in your workplace, a little less constrained by the power of the paycheque. This feeling of liberation might’ve given you more confidence, might’ve helped you take more risks at work. Those risks might have made the difference between careful work and brilliant work. That nest egg might’ve grown to eventually tide you through a period as you made a great big professional leap to something new and wonderful.
▪ The Opportunity Cost of the decision to spend that money is: cost of lost interest, yes, but also, cost of lost potential sense of greater responsibility, cost of lost potential personal growth experience of denying immediate gratification, cost of lost nest egg, cost of lost potential sense of comfort. The cost of behaving differently at work and potentially shaping a different professional path.

Here’s another way that Life Opportunity Costs work:

• You have a job and you have a dream. You have to decide whether to be happy with the job or chase the dream. There is an opportunity cost with every decision, worth evaluating.
• Let’s say you decide to stay at the job, be thankful for what you have and work hard. You like your job, it pays you well, you know the people, and it’s close to home. You let the dream go in favour of keeping your feet firmly planted on the ground. There doesn’t initially appear to be much opportunity cost here, but there is always an opportunity cost with any decision.
• So even though staying with the job seems like the decision with the least financial opportunity cost, what is the opportunity cost in giving up a dream? Will you be able to happily progress through this life, pleased with your grounded choice? Or will the dream gnaw away at your insides, eventually stripping your face and your step from the smile and the spring that the pursuit of the dream might have inspired? Will the denial of the dream make you cranky and even incompetent in said job with time? Will the things you once thought you could enjoy in life (friends, family, neighbours, sunshine) come to carry with them the tarnish of an abandoned dream? Will it colour your glasses with a grey film that filters over every aspect of your life?

I’m not suggesting any of these outcomes would be the outcome of an evaluation for everyone, or for you. But every decision in life, big or small, has Life Opportunity Costs, worth evaluating.

Think relationships: What’s the opportunity cost of abandoning a relationship i.e.: if I leave it, what is lost? Of sticking with it i.e.: if I stay, what is lost? Think parenting: What’s the opportunity cost of this parenting decision i.e.: if I 'discipline' now, what is the cost? If I don’t 'discipline' now, what is the cost? (*discipline not meant to suggest punitive behaviour, only respectful guidance.)

This is the ‘Life Opportunity Costs Model of Decision-Making’. Let me know if you try it.

Item #26: The World Mirror

The other day, someone told me “the world holds a mirror up to us”. It sounded important and profound but I was confused. What did that mean? “The world holds up a mirror to us.”

After obsessively wondering for the last 48 hours, here’s what I think this person meant:

First, I think by “the world”, she actually meant people. People hold mirrors up to us. Many people hold many different mirrors and that all comes together to form the world mirror. In each of those mirrors, and hence the collective mirror is a reflection back to us of the kind of person we are and the value we have.

This led me to wonder specifically about the mirrors that are held up to me in my life:

I have about a dozen colleagues I work with most closely and most regularly at work. They hold mirrors up to me. Mirror #1 through #11: “I value you as a team member because I think you contribute to making our work better.” Mirror #12: “I’m glad you are here because I know the team values you but I’m not sure how I feel about you personally.”

I have a huge family who I spend a lot of time with and think the world of. They hold up mirrors to me. Mirror #1 through #8: “You are fun, funny, and considerate and I love you to pieces.” Mirror #9: “I love you to pieces, especially when you are doing things the way I think they should be done.”

I also have a large group of friends, many who I’ve known for more than 20 years. They hold mirrors up to me as well. Mirror #1 through #15: “You always take a different path, one I never quite understand, and I think you are a bit crazy because of that. But I like you a lot nonetheless.” Mirror #16 through #18: “You are ambitious, a bit wild, and you live life large; I love it, and I love you for doing it.”

Going through this wondering process, I realized two things:

1) It’s true, if we stop and think about it, all the people in our lives do send messages to us about the kind of person we are and the value we have: they do “hold a mirror up to us”. They reflect back their opinion about us, and we hear it, whether we are aware of it or not. We may believe it and internalize or we may not. It may be a good idea to hear it, or it may not.

2) I also found through this wondering that there are remarkably similar reflections often held up by many people, and then possibly a subset group, or subset single person holding up a different reflection.

All told, I think this person’s message to me was indeed important and profound. I think she wanted me to be aware of the fact that the world does holds up a mirror to us and to understand what’s in that reflection. I guess the opportunity then is to evaluate it critically: Which parts of the mirror are real and true? Which parts do I want to accept and embrace and which parts do I want to ignore?

Item #25: How To Be Great

In my industry, there are many people in pursuit of being ‘great’, being ‘rich’, and/ or being ‘famous’. I’m pretty sure it’s not just a factor of my industry; I think it’s a factor of the generation. The ‘15 minutes of fame’; ‘everyone can be a celebrity’ culture and grand wealth of the last decade or so has permeated thinking. I won’t get into my essential conflict around that fact here; if you want my perspective on that, see an earlier post: Item #16: The Tortoise or The Hare.

What I will comment on here is the folly in the thinking that surrounds the desire to be ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ and the consequent errors of the approaches many of the searchers take.

Stated simply, the fundamental problem is that ‘being great’, ‘being rich’, and/ or ‘being famous’ are NOT states that can be pursued. These are NOT goals. We pretend that they are - telling ourselves to visualize our fame or our riches or our greatness – and lulling ourselves into some false belief that the ‘great’, ‘rich’ and ‘famous’ fairies will then come rest on our shoulders, alongside a beautiful dragonfly, flap their magical wings and voila bring everything we ever wanted into our lives.

‘Being great’, ‘being rich’, and/ or ‘being famous’ are not states that can be pursued. They are not goals. They are outcomes. They come as the result of something else.

It is only when something else happens that ‘great’, ‘rich’, and/or ‘famous’ becomes the outcome. Zuckerberg invents the brilliant Facebook and hence he is rich. Meryl Streep wins acting award after acting award and hence is famous. Nelson Mandela stands up for something that matters critically to him and hence he is great.

Zuckerberg wasn’t in search of ‘rich’, he was in search of an innovative technology that would be useful to many of his friends. Streep wasn’t in search of ‘famous’, she was pouring her skill and her heart into something she loved to do. Mandela wasn’t in search of ‘great’; he was in search of taking a personal stand and making an issue known.

Conditions For Being Great

There are however, some conditions that I believe form the basis for the opportunity of being ‘great’, ‘rich’, and/or ‘famous’, not in some orderly way, but I believe in some way, and here they are:

Exceptional Talent: People who achieve ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ have some exceptional talent, however small, however specific – in fact, often small and often very specific. They find that little piece of specificity about their own unique talent and they mine that to it’s fullest, like a dog with a bone.

Exceptional Enjoyment: People who achieve ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ experience exceptional enjoyment through every step of the process. They don’t worry about the outcomes of ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ because they love what they are doing on a day-to-day basis. And frankly, because they love it so much, they end up being even more damn good at it, and amplifying the ‘exceptionally talented’ bucket above.

Hard Work: People who achieve ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ don’t wait for the fairies or the dragonfly to come rest on their shoulder. They work, work, work, hard, not necessarily at the exclusion of a balanced life, but they give 200% to everything they do. The talent is not enough on its own; these people know it’s up to them to make that talent live.

Consistent Commitment: People who achieve ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ commit, stay focused, and keep their head down. They know what they are doing, why they are doing it, they know how it feels inside their own bones and that’s all that matters. Commitment means knowing your own personal path and vision and believing in it. Alone. Yes, I said ‘Alone’.

Altruistic Position: This one might seem surprising where the others may not have. I actually believe that the people who will achieve ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ are more often than not the ones who never had it in mind. In many ways, I believe that ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ is much like happiness – the more you pursue it, the more it eludes you. I believe the best chance to be ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ is to build the conditions above and to do it for yourself and the people you love. Then, with that altruistic intention, ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ might just come land on your shoulder.

Luck: There’s an element of luck in everything. I’m a believer. But I believe luck often comes along just when we need it. We don’t have to pursue the ‘right person at the right time’, or that 'coincidental' opportunity. When your life needs a little luck, it will find you.

Good Karma: Had to say it. Be nice to people. Have a positive, honest, respectful intention behind the things you do. Want to make a meaningful difference in the world, not just your world, but in the world. When I think about it, the people who achieve ‘great’, ‘rich’ and/ or ‘famous’ live this way, don’t they? Maybe a clue.

Item #24: To Connect or Disconnect. That is the Question.

The New York Times published two articles this past week, both related to the issue of technological connectivity. Gary Shteyngart wrote ‘Only Disconnect’ and Laurie Winer wrote ‘Born to Check’, both published on July 9, 2010.

In Gary’s article, he speaks of existential distress at acquiring his ‘iTelephone’, noting how he used to absorb the environment like an artist, and how the device had molded him into a robotic state manipulated by the strings of the wireless world. He celebrates when the network makes connection impossible so that he and his friends can make meaningful contact over the primal event of a meal and some fine scotch in the setting of stars, and trees and chirping birds. I can identify with Gary’s experience.

Laurie discusses the current times of connectivity, from an evolutionary, intellectual perspective, concluding (with the supportive influence of a media and technology writer) that technology brings change, and we accommodate; actually, that in fact, we benefit.

I’m seeing this ‘Connectivity’ issue pop-up more frequently. Is ‘Constant Connectivity’ going to invade our lives and turn us into an army of reactive robots? Or will we reach a boiling point, revolt and shun connectivity?

I suspect neither. I suspect ‘Connectivity’ will challenge us and we will respond. Just like so many other shifts in our human history.

Remember ‘Work-from-Home’?

For just a moment, let’s remember back to the mid-1990s. The ‘work-from-home’ phenomenon was emerging. Workers would negotiate approval to ‘work-from-home’, in some capacity, be it one day a week or full-time. Connectivity via networking and mobile technology devices made this possible: laptops, intranets, cell phones, email, conference calling.

I recall the co-occurring ‘work-from-home’ angst too: fear that it would bring with it a state of ‘always on’. It came true. With this technology came greater demands on time; we had 6:00 am conference calls because suddenly we could link nationally or internationally, so we did. But what also came with this technology was greater flexibility.

Now, I’ll generalize and say that the ‘work-from-home’ phenomenon is all but dead – at least in the formal sense. Now, we all* ‘work-from-home’: sometimes more, sometimes less, sometimes early in the morning, sometimes late at night, sometimes midday too. But we also attend our kid’s ‘step-up to grade 1’ graduation, we also enjoy working sessions in a park or on a restaurant patio, and we review materials late at night from the comfort of our homes rather than the walls of our work. We figured it out, and now mobile working is a part of every day, for most people*. We are always on, yes, but we can also control when we are off to a degree we couldn’t pre-1995-ish.

The Future -- with Connectivity.

As technology continues to infiltrate our lives, we will become increasingly accessible; the demands of connection, people and work, will become more prolific. But we’ll adapt, just like we’ve always done.

- ‘Work time’ and ‘personal time’ will evolve so we will each personally and hence collectively redefine those concepts.

- We’ll work differently. Perhaps the walls of ‘the office’ will fall. I suspect this is likely. Workspaces will become more ad-hoc, more spontaneous, more pop-up. The pub, the coffee shop, the park. Already I see restaurants building conference style rooms for private groups – to facilitate working lunches/ dinners/ etc… Perhaps ‘the home’ will step in to fill some of this need. The back deck, the rec room, the front porch. I suspect this is also likely.

- We’ll communicate differently. Perhaps we’ll come to have more value for text, email and other non-voice forms of communication because they provide some personal distance and facilitate some moderated level of connection. Personal face-time kinds of communication will be for the more intimate, more connected, more relationship-driven tasks like creative ideation, client presentations, group team building. We’ll be more intentional about our use of face-time.

- ‘Connected’ spaces and ‘Dis-Connected’ spaces will cease to exist in any physical form, so we’ll create them ourselves.

- We’ll carve out personal ‘spaces’. My child’s spring concert = turn of the mobile device. My husband is talking to me about something very important to him = turn off the mobile device. The sky is just the right shade of red = capture that with a camera, or just with the camera of the eye. And those personal spaces will take different forms for each of us.

- We’ll carve out work ‘spaces’ too. We’ll wake up an extra hour early to use our most productive time to set goals for the day or make progress on a creative project. Lunch may become a working time; where many will continue to head out for the midday snack, others may hunker down for an hour or so of uninterrupted work.

The future will look different with the impacts and influences of technology and its facilitated connectivity. But it will force us not to divide work and personal so much, which is a good thing, because our work is a huge part of our person.

* Note: I do realize I am commenting more accurately about the experience of the white collar North American professional worker.

Item #23: Ries and Trout Just Played Out

Those of you in marketing are likely familiar with the many writings of Ries and Trout: Marketing Warfare, The 21 Immutable Laws of Marketing, Positioning, Focus. If you aren’t, go read them. They’re brilliant.

40 years after they wrote them, we just witnessed their principles play out perfectly in the automotive space. Trout and Ries believe that:

- Marketing is war, with the battle being waged in the minds of consumers;
- That good positioning requires focus (ideally to stand for one thing);
- Consumers map brands perceptually on spaces in their minds;
- Once that focused space in the territory of the consumer’s mind is owned, is it very difficult to shake it i.e.: perceptions persist.

Let’s look at what has happened in the world of automotive over the last few months:

- The Quality space in the minds of consumers belonged to Toyota. First and foremost, this was the most tightly connected brand to the perceptual space in the minds of consumers with regards to automotive quality in North America. But, there’s been a shake-up. Toyota with its recall has been tossed off the perceptual Quality podium.
- That space on the Quality podium, hence, became vacant in the minds of consumers, leaving an opportunity for someone to claim (or re-claim) it. The one who was most poised to take that position (after Toyota) was the one with the latent, pre-existing potential associations to Quality. And that was Ford. We still remember, “At Ford, Quality is Job 1.” The perceptual credentials were there. No other competitive car company had that latent clear association ready to be mined. General Motors, no. Subaru, no (Adventure). Mazda, no (fun). Honda, no (performance). Only Ford had strong quality associations in the perceptual set of the minds of consumers.

Cut to this headline and short excerpt:

Ford climbs to top in quality while Toyota plunges in annual study
TONY VAN ALPHEN 
BUSINESS REPORTER
Jun 18, 2010

Surging Ford has moved into top spot in quality among non-luxury automakers while Toyota plunged after years of stellar performances, according to a key industry study.

The annual J.D. Power and Associates study of initial quality showed Thursday that Ford’s emphasis in recent years on building better autos is paying off again after it posted the least amount of defects per model for the first time in 24 years.
Ford, whose fortunes have jumped in the last year, improved to fifth from eighth spot overall behind four luxury auto makers but Toyota tumbled from seventh to 21th place,

“The blue oval is becoming synonymous with high quality,” said Bennie Fowler, Ford’s vice-president responsible for quality and new model launches.

The study, which automakers and consumers watch closely, measures the responses of 82,000 U.S. motorists in a 128-question survey on the quality of their new vehicles after 90 days of ownership between February and May.

So, as far as I conclude, the greatly admired Ries and Trout just played out. This is consumer perception at work. This is the battle in the mind of the consumer. And in this case, Ford won it; Ford conquered the territory.

Just in case: I hope there aren’t any lingering skeptics out there who might really believe that rational, factual, or functional quality changed for Ford that fast (from Toyota recall to now) in the minds of that many consumers to have rational experience effect this outcome. No way.

Item #22: The Ant

He was big and black and climbing in a directly upward path on a brightly painted white fence. Behind him was the stone floor and ahead of him were the knots in the wood, the top of the painted fence, and the foliage of the overhanging trees.

The ant is a worker, known for his persistent ethic, and his strength.

He could have stayed below, travelled the flat path of the stone floor, muddled about looking for scraps of something. But down there he would risk being trampled and likely only ever find the same as any other insect might find. The dangers on the ground are much greater and the potential fruits of the search more ordinary. Instead he chooses the upward climb, because up high above it all is where he might find the extraordinary, a little something out of reach to the other insects who choose the flat easy travels on the ground.

Who knows what is so interesting about the climb, or what he might find at the top of the fence, or inside the leaves and branches of the trees above. No idea. But I like his style. That little big ant.