Today I was reading a editorial on YAHOO! Finance called "Putting an End to Magical Thinking" by Laura Rowley. It's an interesting essay, and I like the point it makes about the twisted American Dream ("Magical thinking can be defined as a perversion of traditional American optimism. Magical thinking is the can-do attitude without the do.")
You can read it here: http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/136030
I agree that a scary sense of entitlement is one of the roots of the current economic woes. Both at the highest level of corporate America and in the most average Joe Schmoe. You can find it in people of all ages, races, education levels, and social strata. And, yes, it's exacerbated by reality TV shows were contests whine that they "deserve it because they want it so badly" -- as if your just deserts were correlated to your heart's desires.
Don't get me wrong. I grasp that we don't live in a meritocracy (as much as I wish we did). And who you know often trumps what you know. And people do get breaks (good and bad) along the way. At the same time....there is, IMHO, a huge correlation between effort and result. And the fact that someone may have won the lottery (literally or in terms of wealth, beauty, or intelligence) doesn't UNDO the fact that we each have our own lever in this world - our determination and perseverence.
The reason I started this rant is one of the responses that was posted to the YAHOO! essay. Someone's post included: "The game is rigged, and you will never be wealthy if you are at all honest and hard working."
That belief makes my soul ache.
Yes, the game is rigged, but not by "the man" or some power outside of us. This person has rigged his or her own game with a mindset that says "I am broke; therefore, I am honest." Hard-wire that into your brain, and you'll never be anything but broke.
I despise the oft heard "trusim" that anyone with money must have cheated, lied, or stealed to get it. Yes, some people did all those things, and I believe they will find a true reward for their behavior in the end (the very, very end).
On the other hand, many millions of people around the world have money because they worked, planned, saved, and made hard choices rather than using easy-credit to expedite an American Dream built on a rotten foundation.
The self-imposed, self-limiting beliefs we carry with us (some burnt in by our parents, some by culture/media, and some self-rationalizations we created ourselves)... these are the "truths" that stop us from using our innate talents, human creativity, and a dollop of discipine to create the life we want, rather than the life the Visa commercials tell us we deserve.
That's my two cents. And those two cents are in the bank earning a whopping 1.45% interest; does that make me evil?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Friday, December 26, 2008
A Better Yahtzee Mousetrap
I am in awe of the game called Yahtzee Free for All (by Hasbro). It's a fresh take and successful line extension of a decades-old brand, and it's perhaps the best example of consumer packaging I have ever seen.
Yahtzee has always been a fun game...but let's face it, it was not interactive. All of the strategy and luck took place in your little scorecard. So you were doing something that you could do alone, but doing it in the presence of others...hmmmm.
BUT! Yahtzee Free For All has a great spin: you roll your dice (3 rolls as in the original) to earn cards based on the traditional combinations, but when you are successful you put the card in your "home" slot for one full round of turns. The other plays can steal your card by bettering your combination (e.g., if you had three 3's on a 3 card, they could roll four 3's; if you had a full house of three 1's and two fives (13 dice points) they could beat it with three 4's and two 3's (18 dice points).) When play makes it back to your turn, you get to "bank" the card, if it's not been stolen, and try for more.
There's more to it, of course....but the bottom-line is it's an interactive and slightly cutthroat way to enliven Yahtzee -- and it's faster pace than the traditional game. So, as an avid gamester, I like it!
As a MARKETER, I was blown away by how carefully the packaging was thought out. It's hard to explain how cleverly this game is designed.
First of all, the box bottom turns into the board (folding out in to a 6 player shape (sort of like a flower unfolding). Each players petal (if you will) has a place to display their final roll of dice and their home card. The chips (used to increase point value of cards if player has an unsuccessful turn) have a clever ripple design that makes them very easy to stack and less likely to scatter. The instruction booklet is shaped like a 2D die (which makes it 6 sided), and that also opens like a flower. The box cover is felted on the inside to use as a rolling surface...everything you touch is thoughtful and streamlined.
Even if you don't like games, check this out as an excellent example of taking even the simplest element to a clean, logic, and compelling execution. An inspirational idea for any marketing campaign or deliverable. : )
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Is it them? Is it me? It's you.
A friend and colleague whom I respect recently said that he could had never had success in a situation where he delegated an outcome and let the delegatee determine how to achieve it.
Now, of course, "never" in this case is a clear exaggeration since I have done work for this person and, of course, fulfilled all aspects of the assignment with accuracy, vigor, and panache.
Hyperbole notwithstanding....why has he had this dearth of successful delegation? If it was only with one or two people, you could say - well, it must be them. But if legions of workerbees have failed him...is it him? Maybe. Or is it both parties? Maybe.
Stephen Covey has a whole system of delegation, with various steps leading up to stewardship delegation. And he argues that one should not attempt a higher level of delegation than the relationship supports. In other words, if you are dealing with a shoes-and-socks person (that's my term for the type of person who, when told to put their shoes and sock on, ends up with the socks on the outside...because, hey, that's what you said!)....if you're dealing with that kind of person, you can't really assign a nebulous outcome and hope for the best.
But let's assume that the delegatees are quality individuals, creative-minded, and ready to attack a problem. Why are there still so may times when what we get is not what we wanted?
I've assigned my share of tasks and been underwhelmed by the results.
I've also, as a freelancer, submitted a deliverable filled with pride and anticipation (like a kid presenting a stunning macaroni and glitter necklace on Mother's Day), only to be gut-checked by the silent, awkward pause that means "wow, how in God's name did you end up with this?"
This is a classic lose-lose situation. The person who assigned the task is thrown into a tailspin because the critical path has stalled (or even moved backward). The person who did the work feels a melange of emotions from unappreciated to misunderstood to incompetent. And the work, the thing, is still un-done.
I propose there are five things that could avoid or reduce these situations.
1. Clarify
Recognize that you have your own lingo and shorthand and the person you're talking to may not understand it. I've found only about 5% of the population will risk looking stupid to ask you to clarify something you say. Everyone else nods wisely, then goes back to their office or cubicle or whatever and thinks, "what the heck did she mean by "breadcrumbs on the PowerPoint"? Make it OK to ask for clarification -- one great way to do that is for YOU to risk looking stupid to ask the delegatee to explain his or her langauge. Make it safe to ask, and you cut down re-work caused by lack of clarity down the road.
2. Sketch
If you have something in mind, take out a sheet of paper or a napkin and sketch what you see in your head. There's nothing more frustrating than bringing 5 or 6 ideas for review --- kneeling before the delegator like a supplicant with one idea after another --- and getting the "eh, not quite" response. If you know what you want, don't keep it to yourself.
3. Contextualize
Even if you don't have an exact answer in mind, you need to give the delegatee a clue as to how their solution will be used. If you ask a graphic artists to "create a compelling graphic" you've really not given her anything to work with. On the other hand, if you say -- "I don't have a specific solution in mind, but I need a graphic element that we can use all year, that will work on a handout or a billboard, that is consistent with the brand, and that suggests movement through the process" -- you've provided context for the scale, the level of detail, the color scheme, and the style. Let's face it, we often delegate because we want results beyond what we would have thought of ourselves, but there are also parameters that must be met. Don't leave out the context.
4. Echo
You're already nodding...sure, sure, everyone knows this one. But do you do it? Do you take the time to ask your delegatee to explain the assignment back to you in his own language? Or do you practice drive-by-management, flinging assignments over your shoulder (or worse across your Blackberry) as you rush out the door for the airport? Three minutes...that's about the investment to get the double-handshake that means your delegatee understood you....if you don't get the echo... 30 minutes, 300 minutes? How long will it take to re-do?
5. Calibrate
If you work with someone frequently, consider co-creating a scale that defines the type of assignment. For example, sometimes you need someone do to exactly what you want -- not terribly rewarding for the delegatee, but vital to hitting a deadline. So have a code for that: "this is a verbatim assignment." In that case, the delegatee knows to listen careful and execute exactly; this is not the time to spitball alternatives. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes you have a wild idea that may not even be possible, but you want someone to think about it and spend a little time on it: "this is a percolator assignment, put about 5 hours into it and let's see if it has any legs." (it is important to tell the person how much time to invest on this kind of thing and where it falls against other priorities). Obviously, the type of scale has to make sense for your situation...but think about a way to shorthand the types of tasks.
None of this is easy to do in the rush of an average day --- but it is simple. If you are not happy with an end result, revisit the moment of assignment. The seed of the solution is likely there.
Now, of course, "never" in this case is a clear exaggeration since I have done work for this person and, of course, fulfilled all aspects of the assignment with accuracy, vigor, and panache.
Hyperbole notwithstanding....why has he had this dearth of successful delegation? If it was only with one or two people, you could say - well, it must be them. But if legions of workerbees have failed him...is it him? Maybe. Or is it both parties? Maybe.
Stephen Covey has a whole system of delegation, with various steps leading up to stewardship delegation. And he argues that one should not attempt a higher level of delegation than the relationship supports. In other words, if you are dealing with a shoes-and-socks person (that's my term for the type of person who, when told to put their shoes and sock on, ends up with the socks on the outside...because, hey, that's what you said!)....if you're dealing with that kind of person, you can't really assign a nebulous outcome and hope for the best.
But let's assume that the delegatees are quality individuals, creative-minded, and ready to attack a problem. Why are there still so may times when what we get is not what we wanted?
I've assigned my share of tasks and been underwhelmed by the results.
I've also, as a freelancer, submitted a deliverable filled with pride and anticipation (like a kid presenting a stunning macaroni and glitter necklace on Mother's Day), only to be gut-checked by the silent, awkward pause that means "wow, how in God's name did you end up with this?"
This is a classic lose-lose situation. The person who assigned the task is thrown into a tailspin because the critical path has stalled (or even moved backward). The person who did the work feels a melange of emotions from unappreciated to misunderstood to incompetent. And the work, the thing, is still un-done.
I propose there are five things that could avoid or reduce these situations.
1. Clarify
Recognize that you have your own lingo and shorthand and the person you're talking to may not understand it. I've found only about 5% of the population will risk looking stupid to ask you to clarify something you say. Everyone else nods wisely, then goes back to their office or cubicle or whatever and thinks, "what the heck did she mean by "breadcrumbs on the PowerPoint"? Make it OK to ask for clarification -- one great way to do that is for YOU to risk looking stupid to ask the delegatee to explain his or her langauge. Make it safe to ask, and you cut down re-work caused by lack of clarity down the road.
2. Sketch
If you have something in mind, take out a sheet of paper or a napkin and sketch what you see in your head. There's nothing more frustrating than bringing 5 or 6 ideas for review --- kneeling before the delegator like a supplicant with one idea after another --- and getting the "eh, not quite" response. If you know what you want, don't keep it to yourself.
3. Contextualize
Even if you don't have an exact answer in mind, you need to give the delegatee a clue as to how their solution will be used. If you ask a graphic artists to "create a compelling graphic" you've really not given her anything to work with. On the other hand, if you say -- "I don't have a specific solution in mind, but I need a graphic element that we can use all year, that will work on a handout or a billboard, that is consistent with the brand, and that suggests movement through the process" -- you've provided context for the scale, the level of detail, the color scheme, and the style. Let's face it, we often delegate because we want results beyond what we would have thought of ourselves, but there are also parameters that must be met. Don't leave out the context.
4. Echo
You're already nodding...sure, sure, everyone knows this one. But do you do it? Do you take the time to ask your delegatee to explain the assignment back to you in his own language? Or do you practice drive-by-management, flinging assignments over your shoulder (or worse across your Blackberry) as you rush out the door for the airport? Three minutes...that's about the investment to get the double-handshake that means your delegatee understood you....if you don't get the echo... 30 minutes, 300 minutes? How long will it take to re-do?
5. Calibrate
If you work with someone frequently, consider co-creating a scale that defines the type of assignment. For example, sometimes you need someone do to exactly what you want -- not terribly rewarding for the delegatee, but vital to hitting a deadline. So have a code for that: "this is a verbatim assignment." In that case, the delegatee knows to listen careful and execute exactly; this is not the time to spitball alternatives. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes you have a wild idea that may not even be possible, but you want someone to think about it and spend a little time on it: "this is a percolator assignment, put about 5 hours into it and let's see if it has any legs." (it is important to tell the person how much time to invest on this kind of thing and where it falls against other priorities). Obviously, the type of scale has to make sense for your situation...but think about a way to shorthand the types of tasks.
None of this is easy to do in the rush of an average day --- but it is simple. If you are not happy with an end result, revisit the moment of assignment. The seed of the solution is likely there.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Hope Springs External
I have never really cared for the word "hope."
If you ask someone, "Can you pick me up at 7?" and they reply "I hope so," how confident do you feel about that ride? If someone tells you "I hope I don't have a cold," do you really want to share her latte?
The Obama campaign incorporated "hope" into much of its monologue....and I think it caught people's attention because it hit a nerve, a longing for something better, something different. Like the word "change," "hope" is a nebulous concept that for many people, sits out there somewhere. Hey, cool, I can "hope" for "change" ...and never step up to do what I need to do to get there.
Hope won't help you pass a test. Hope won't pay the rent. Hope won't build your muscles. Hope won't let you play a concerto. Hope won't cure cancer. Hope won't bring in the mail.
Work. Effort. Vision. Passion. Trust. Love. Action. Perseverence. Put these in your arsenal, and you will find your way to any goal.
Alexander Pope said "hope springs eternal"... I think for most of the world hope springs EXTERNAL. If you expect your hope to come from out there, then it is passive and weak.
Turn it around. Make it a verb not a noun.....we don't need to "have" hope, we need to "DO" hope --- with action and effort.
If you ask someone, "Can you pick me up at 7?" and they reply "I hope so," how confident do you feel about that ride? If someone tells you "I hope I don't have a cold," do you really want to share her latte?
The Obama campaign incorporated "hope" into much of its monologue....and I think it caught people's attention because it hit a nerve, a longing for something better, something different. Like the word "change," "hope" is a nebulous concept that for many people, sits out there somewhere. Hey, cool, I can "hope" for "change" ...and never step up to do what I need to do to get there.
Hope won't help you pass a test. Hope won't pay the rent. Hope won't build your muscles. Hope won't let you play a concerto. Hope won't cure cancer. Hope won't bring in the mail.
Work. Effort. Vision. Passion. Trust. Love. Action. Perseverence. Put these in your arsenal, and you will find your way to any goal.
Alexander Pope said "hope springs eternal"... I think for most of the world hope springs EXTERNAL. If you expect your hope to come from out there, then it is passive and weak.
Turn it around. Make it a verb not a noun.....we don't need to "have" hope, we need to "DO" hope --- with action and effort.
"If we continue to pursue hope then we had best become a producer of it, rather than a consumer of it. Let it be an offer rather than a demand. Let us offer hope to our leaders, since we create them, because they need all the support they can get."
- Peter Block, The Answer to How is Yes
Monday, October 27, 2008
IGMFY
"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief."
- Alan Greenspan
Yes, thank you, Alan.
Who knew that greed was a greater proportion of self-interest" than protecting shareholders' equity?
Geesh. Who could see that coming?
It only took a few thousand years, but now we have a window into the soul of man.
Self-interest versus the good of the many.
Short-term versus long-term decision making.
Now I get it.
They say that Errol Flyn had a boat named IGMFY.... "I got mine, ____ you."
I think that may be tattooed on the hearts (if not the biceps) of a lot of people.
And we can blame the mighty CEOs and bureaucrats in government....
but just a few weeks ago, when Nashville had a gas shortage that became a gas OUTAGE, we had hourly proof of the IGMFY philosophy as people topped off their tanks and bought extra containers of gas to ensure they had what THEY needed.
So, it would be nice to believe that those in power are somehow imbued with a deeper sense of responsibility to community, a deeper commitment to the greater good...and I think some of them are. Call me cynical....but how many of us ever really evolve past that 3 year old who figure out he can take a cookie when no one is looking. Maybe some of the time. Maybe much of the time we are able to leave our self-centered bubble and let our morality (versus our greed and hungers) guide us....but it's there, in the background...maybe in our DNA....IGMFY.
Then you see people who've mastered it...they race INTO burning buildings to save a stranger. They sacrifice everything for others. So we know it's possible. Do they not have the gene, or do they keep it tightly held, clenched in the back of their brain? Maybe they have IGMFY antibodies and we could innoculate the government....hmmmmmm.......
- Alan Greenspan
Yes, thank you, Alan.
Who knew that greed was a greater proportion of self-interest" than protecting shareholders' equity?
Geesh. Who could see that coming?
It only took a few thousand years, but now we have a window into the soul of man.
Self-interest versus the good of the many.
Short-term versus long-term decision making.
Now I get it.
They say that Errol Flyn had a boat named IGMFY.... "I got mine, ____ you."
I think that may be tattooed on the hearts (if not the biceps) of a lot of people.
And we can blame the mighty CEOs and bureaucrats in government....
but just a few weeks ago, when Nashville had a gas shortage that became a gas OUTAGE, we had hourly proof of the IGMFY philosophy as people topped off their tanks and bought extra containers of gas to ensure they had what THEY needed.
So, it would be nice to believe that those in power are somehow imbued with a deeper sense of responsibility to community, a deeper commitment to the greater good...and I think some of them are. Call me cynical....but how many of us ever really evolve past that 3 year old who figure out he can take a cookie when no one is looking. Maybe some of the time. Maybe much of the time we are able to leave our self-centered bubble and let our morality (versus our greed and hungers) guide us....but it's there, in the background...maybe in our DNA....IGMFY.
Then you see people who've mastered it...they race INTO burning buildings to save a stranger. They sacrifice everything for others. So we know it's possible. Do they not have the gene, or do they keep it tightly held, clenched in the back of their brain? Maybe they have IGMFY antibodies and we could innoculate the government....hmmmmmm.......
Monday, September 29, 2008
Buy High. Sell Low. Nicely Done.
More bad news. More fear.
Oh good, the nightly news will be able to spread more panic.
The panic movement on Wall Street is just beyond me. Especially when I hear people (just regular people) saying they are not only getting out of their mutual funds, they are getting out of their banks!?! Then what?
You can't have it both ways --- if the financial system is going to implode, then mass inflation (etc) is going to make your cash-under-the-mattress as valuable as Confederate Bonds. Grab a wheelbarrow of $20 bills and go by buy some bread.
OR, the financial market will right itself--granted most likely at a lower level, but it will build from there, eh? And if that's the case, you don't want to pull your money out now; you'll miss the recovery.
The rule of thumb is buy low, sell high....but so many people seem hellbent on the opposite.
Calm. Calm. Calm. Be brave and believe in the underlying mechanism.
Pollyanna?
Maybe.
But the alternative is unthinkable.
Oh good, the nightly news will be able to spread more panic.
The panic movement on Wall Street is just beyond me. Especially when I hear people (just regular people) saying they are not only getting out of their mutual funds, they are getting out of their banks!?! Then what?
You can't have it both ways --- if the financial system is going to implode, then mass inflation (etc) is going to make your cash-under-the-mattress as valuable as Confederate Bonds. Grab a wheelbarrow of $20 bills and go by buy some bread.
OR, the financial market will right itself--granted most likely at a lower level, but it will build from there, eh? And if that's the case, you don't want to pull your money out now; you'll miss the recovery.
The rule of thumb is buy low, sell high....but so many people seem hellbent on the opposite.
Calm. Calm. Calm. Be brave and believe in the underlying mechanism.
Pollyanna?
Maybe.
But the alternative is unthinkable.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Plunge. Plummet. Collapse.
Plunge. Plummet. Collapse.
These are the verbs the media likes to use about the stock market.
Over-hyped. Overwrought. Over-paid.
These are the adjectives I like to use about the media.
What happened to objective journalism? What happened to reporting the facts - the who, what, where, and when? There's way too much "WHY" coming through my TV, radio, web, paper, etc. I don't care about their interpretation of motivation and next steps. I hate when they "report" things such as: "the stock market plunged 100 points as nervous investors left the auto sector in droves."
In the first place, what gives with the characterization of hundreds, thousands or millions of faceless investors as nervous? Maybe some of them were gleeful! Maybe others were morose. WHO CARES!
And, since most "average" people in this country are NOT playing the market on a daily basis, what's with the connection of John Q. Publics angst at the pump and the volatile markets? They show sound bites of some hapless fellow explaining that he can't afford to buy carrots as if that sheds light on the fate of multinational investments.
I don't get it. And I don't get the panic and entitlement that I hear from "average people" about how unfair it is that their 401K is down. Yes, you chose to play the market -- since when does "fair" mean things only go up? Not in this lifetime.
I'm not happy to lose money-on-paper either....trust me. But I just wish we could get away from the frantic, frenetic, and often false depiction and WHY markets move and just stick to the facts.
These are the verbs the media likes to use about the stock market.
Over-hyped. Overwrought. Over-paid.
These are the adjectives I like to use about the media.
What happened to objective journalism? What happened to reporting the facts - the who, what, where, and when? There's way too much "WHY" coming through my TV, radio, web, paper, etc. I don't care about their interpretation of motivation and next steps. I hate when they "report" things such as: "the stock market plunged 100 points as nervous investors left the auto sector in droves."
In the first place, what gives with the characterization of hundreds, thousands or millions of faceless investors as nervous? Maybe some of them were gleeful! Maybe others were morose. WHO CARES!
And, since most "average" people in this country are NOT playing the market on a daily basis, what's with the connection of John Q. Publics angst at the pump and the volatile markets? They show sound bites of some hapless fellow explaining that he can't afford to buy carrots as if that sheds light on the fate of multinational investments.
I don't get it. And I don't get the panic and entitlement that I hear from "average people" about how unfair it is that their 401K is down. Yes, you chose to play the market -- since when does "fair" mean things only go up? Not in this lifetime.
I'm not happy to lose money-on-paper either....trust me. But I just wish we could get away from the frantic, frenetic, and often false depiction and WHY markets move and just stick to the facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
