They say it's bad news, but is it really?

I've had the privilege to meet with many smart people on my journeys and have always been better for it; a meeting a few days ago was no exception.

I was part of a sit down with a "domain expert" to discuss an opportunity we were working on; as we worked through the time available to us, she was quick to offer constructive criticism, injected astute observations, identified realities we were going to have to overcome, and came up with many suggestions. In the end, she looked at us empathetically said, "Sorry to deliver all this bad news."

We told her that her feedback was appreciated, that it had given us much food for thought (mostly because it was all very insightful and spot on), and thanked her for her time. As we debriefed later, worked through our disappointment and started to get our heads around all the work that needed to be done, I couldn't help dwell on her parting words because nothing in what she had said was "bad news" in my mind - I have heard bad news before and what she said was not it.

Bad news would be the doctor has just told you that you have incurable cancer. To offer an even greater perspective, horrific news would be the doctor telling you that your child has incurable cancer - Bad news takes away potential and the future possibilities.

The "news" we heard did none of that. 

There is this tendency to identify "easy news" with GOOD and "hard news" with BAD, where in fact it's simply an aspect of the degree of difficulty to deal with it (be it work involved or emotional effort); be it "easy or hard" (as well as the iterations in between), your potential to deal with it is not impacted - It becomes an exercise in how to figure it out.

Truly BAD news (and some of it's more horrific versions) takes away your potential to figure it out and your future possibilities. That is what makes it so BAD.

So in the end all we heard was "hard news", as our potential and future possibilities were still intact.

iamgpe

"The Project Oriented Business Life" and other such things.

The following is the original and the rewrite can be found by clicking here.

With an air of triumph he slid the piece of paper across the table as if it was the final offer after a series of long negotiations and proudly announced he had sketched out the business life model he uses.

As I looked at the drawing, it was apparent that penmanship was not a core competency; after he dismissed my quip regarding his mastery of the crayon, he went on to explain "The Project Oriented Business Life".   

For him, business was all about the opportunity - Something that had a beginning and an end, that was ultimately closed off, and offered a chance for reflection before you put it behind you and moved onto the next opportunity.  

As I listened to his passion, it was his view on the time spent to "go away" and "regain energy & perspective" that offered me the greatest pause for thought. Like most of us, his business life model had him reviewing the outcome (be it either a "win or a lose") but instead of jumping right back in, he would take time to change his context to regain energy and perspective before starting over. Analogous somewhat to taking a walk in the forest when all you do is drive in the city I suppose... "It's opener there in the wide open air"*.

As I walked out of his office with a copy of his "Rembrandt" in hand, I could not help but think of other business life models that people have offered up over the years. 

A very competent business leader I have known for years explained to me that for him it was all about working backwards from his goals. He went on to explain he would set out a goal and then work backwards to determine what he needed to get there, how he would get there, develop the timeline and the milestones he needed to ensure success. He went on to say that this just wasn't about developing the right skills or networks but it was important in helping him understand the emotional wherewithal needed to make it happen... achieving a goal, particularly a big one, can be exhausting physically, mentally and sometimes spiritually, so you have to be prepared. 

Another insight came with an idea of the iterative development of core competencies and strengths - The thinking in this instance was to understand what you are good at and then start building on it. In doing so, you create an iterative process of development that continues growing as your awareness for new skills increases, which was a result of what you have learned. It was visualized as a spiral forever increasing in size with the centre getting tighter and tighter over time; the reflection of true domain expertise.

Is any one model of thinking better for success, wellbeing, and happiness? Who's to say, and luckily for me it was never my intension to answer this "bunny hole of a question" as I zigzagged my way to making a point.

And that point is it's important to understand and be able to articulate the business life model you use. We all operate using some sort of model (whether we recognize it or not), and the need to understand what it is, how it works, and how you use it is imperative for one important reason - It will help ensure you have aligned what you do with what you want.

This actually brings me back to that "bunny hole question" I was trying to avoid which it seems turns out to be rather straight forward... the best work life model is the one that will help you meet your goals, with each being as unique as the dreams and goals of each person.

In the end, knowing how you operate your business life model increases the chance that you are aligned with your goals and ensures you are using the best tool for your success, wellbeing and happiness.

I will admit I am very surprised how much you can glean from a collection of chicken scratchings... so grab a pen and a piece of paper and get on with it.

iamgpe

* A line from "Oh, the Places You'll Go" by Dr. Seuss. 

Let the challenging begin...

The following is the original and the rewrite can be found by clicking here.

The other night an old colleague was telling me about a new leader who asked his team why everyone was "playing so nice". The day after that, I found myself discussing a situation where we couldn't agree and finally decided to "agree to disagree"; amid all the discussion though, we at least agreed how important it was that we felt comfortable enough to challenge each other's thinking - We knew that in the end a better understanding of the situation and a better solution would be born from it; all of which were very good things.

Was this universal coincidence? My humble experience "thinks not". 

I've found over my short tenure on this fine planet that when the universe wants to get involved, it usually has an important point to make and really, really wants you to listen; my experience has also shown it sometimes can be really, really hard to figure out what it's trying to say. Since I've taken us this far, I guess I'll take a shot as to where this was coming from... universally speaking.

Was the universe trying to re-enforce the truism that when you bring constructive perspectives and thinking together in an environment of respect and trust, with a common goal in mind, you will always get a better result solving even the most "M.C. Escher"* like situations? Although this is crucially important, I don't think this was it. 

I think what the universe had in mind lies with the question posed in that story (over a beer) about someone I most likely will never meet - "Why are you playing so nice?". The universe wanted to give me a simple heads up for my day to come, as well as remind me of what can compromise idea generation, problem solving, and planning... as well as make those "Escheresque situations" much less fun.

Since the universe brought it up we should start with "playing nice", for no other reason than it is the "frickin'" universe and deserves our respect.

"Are you playing too nice?" - This is not to suggest unleashing a no hold bars blood sport where the victor takes all but rather to say if you want better answers and solutions you need to stop agreeing, stop avoiding the elephant in the room, or stay silent because what you have to say is unpopular. In turn, "not playing nice" doesn't mean you don't have to be respectful, listen, and appreciate the participation around the table - The meaning is it's important to challenge what is being said with other thoughts, perspectives and views.

And along the same vein we have - 

Are all agendas and goals around the table aligned? -  Everyone has egos and personal agendas but it is crucial that everyone "checks it" at the door and aligns to the single goal of dealing with the situation at hand. You can pick your ego and agenda back up on the way out and continue on your merry way. This is all figurative of course, but no less important because if you don't align then nothing will every get done except for an endless number of unproductive meetings.

If you are not participating what value are you bringing? - This is more or less self explanatory, but it should be mentioned that participating does not mean listening to yourself speak by echoing thoughts that are already out on the table or aligning what you say for reasons other than dealing with the situation at hand. (See above)

How come everyone around the table isn't taking the opportunity to be a leader? - Yes there is ultimately someone around the table who gets to throw the "czar card" for a final decision, but everyone around the table has the same opportunity to shape the conversation, the thinking, the direction of the final decision, and rally everyone to a vision - And isn't that what leadership is all about?

And there you have it, my most recent universal coincidence. Can I say for sure this was the point it was trying to make; probably not, but what I can say is when the universe wants to tell me something I listen really, really hard. After all, it is the "frinkin' universe".

gpe.

* The best way to explain the genius of M.C. Escher is by  sending you to his website where I hope this all makes sense.