The first time

I’ve been talking with some people this week about love. I told a story to start a workshop on Winning Submissions (winning business). The story I told as about the first time I fell in love (with Janice as it turns out). Do you remember the first time you fell in love? I’m sure that for most of us it’s such a potent experience that we never forget. But what did we learn? If it was so potent not only would we remember it – but what happened would have shaped us. It would have contributed to our perspective on the world, shaped our beliefs and values. Influenced our behaviours.

Unfortunately my story is a sad one. My love was not returned. Janice only had eyes for Richard. I had been rejected and I didn’t like it. I was only  eight ( I started young!!) and it felt bad, but I learnt somethings.

What did you learn from the first time you fell in love?

The eyes have it.

In one of the greatest sporting boil-overs, the Kiwi’s beat the overwhelming favorites, Australia, to win the 2008 rugby league world cup.

During the singing of the anthems the camera runs along the lines of both teams’ players. There was a difference in the eyes of the players from each team. The Australia’s looked confident almost arrogant. But the Kiwi’s eyes were different. They were so focused they looked like they were in a trance. It was other-worldly. I said to myself ‘they’re going to give the Aussies hell’. And they did. They say the eyes are the windows to the soul. And the Kiwis soul was made of steel.

What are your eyes communicating from your soul?

Tales of Passion

Here’s a great example of the power of emotion. Author and activist Isabel Allende delivers  tales of passion. What I love about this is that Isabel has you laughing one moment and sad the next. The video runs for 17 minutes, but you’ll see what I mean by 5 minutes 02. It’s quite a performance.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/isabel_allende_tells_tales_of_passion.html

Also I think we need more NZ’s that meet her requirements for good characters – mavericks, dissidents, outsiders, adventurers and rebels. Those with a passionate heart.

‘the’ and ‘a’

Interestingly, both the US and our elections have been talking about change. Some would argue that Obama’s (the well known IRA terrorist Barrick O’Bamagh!) win signals a ground swell for change.  I think in the US, American’s have voted for the change Barack has inspired people to believe in. Here in NZ, some are urging us to vote for a change.

One is a deliberate and positive choice about a specific future. The other is driven by blame, simplistic thinking and apathy.

In support of mediocrity

There is a lot to be said for the average.

Particularly when it comes to talent. I have always been  sceptical of organisations investing in talent management. Especially when the approach begins by identifying and developing the top performers. I don’t like the idea on principle. I am philosophically opposed. See my earlier post. I thought my opposition was purely ideological. Today it seems I have a quantifiable argument as well. In goes like this:

Every group has a small percentage of  top performers and a small percentage of under performers. But the bulk of the performance is driven by the average performers. The middle of the bell curve. The problem with focusing on the top performers is that increasing their performance doesn’t contribute significantly to overall group performance. Especially when compared to raising the performance of average performers. And it’s difficult to lift the performance of top-performers because they’re already performing well.

The most effective way to increase group performance is to move the bell-curve to the right. To increase the performance of the average performers. If you can raise the performance of your average performers – the 60% in the middle – by 10%, that’s a net 6% across the group. And that easier because there is so much untapped potential! You’d have to raise the performance of your top performers – the top 10% – by 60% to match that. And that’s harder because they are already performing highly.

At last, an argument in favour of mediocrity. What a opportunity!!

NZ’s Barack Obama

Watching our leaders debate last night made me think about Barack Obama! The leaders of our two biggest parties seem tired, boring and self-interested. Their shortcomings highlighted by any comparison with BO. They may both be effective managers, but even before this current global melt-down, I think NZ needed more than just effective management. Both Clarke and Keys fail to convey any sense of engaging emotion. They just say it.

For Helen, she’s saying “trust me”. OK, well the more you say that the more I begin to wonder. Someone please tell Helen that saying ‘you can trust me” doesn’t  doesn’t mean people will trust you. While she is credible and reliable as I leader, she doesn’t connect emotionally and she and John look self-interested in just winning the election. They don’t seem authentic or principled. They will say what it takes to win.

On winning.

If I was John, I’d try and use Labour’s  trust-me message against them. For instance say “Helen is asking NZ to trust her to make decisions for them – I and National, trust NZ to make the right decisions for themselves”.

As for Keys. He wants NZ to be more aspirational. Well, he could start with one himself. What is his aspiration for NZ? Beyond the platitudes about crime, the OECD ladder, etc. If I was Helen, I’d be articulating a compelling vision. I suspect they have one but don’t communicate it well.

So where’s NZ’s BO? I suspect he/she is more likely to come from the Maori or Green parties. Many of their leaders seem real and principled. Will these parties one day challenge the dominance of Labour and National?

A bullet with your name on it.

I’ve been re-reading Gary Hamel’s business strategy book – Leading the Revolution. And been wondering about how to make strategic planning more effective. I like Gary’s quote that “somewhere out there is a bullet with your company’s name on it”. It’s a comment about the competitiveness of markets and the rapid rate at which change can occur.

Perhaps every strategic planning session should start with a conversation about that bullet. I mean, start by putting yourself into someone else’s shoes. Someone who’s vested interest isn’t in the success of the organisation.

• How easy would it be for the organisation to fail?
• What strategies would a competitor pursue?
• What changes would dramatically impact the future success of the organisation?
• What changes could we make that would guarantee failure?

I think it useful to start more dramatically, so that participants aren’t captured by the status quo. It seems far easier to be complacent when strategic planning, than it is to over estimate the potential for dramatic change.

What works for you when strategic planning?

Arbitrary coherence

This is a rather interesting idea. It says that people are influenced by contextual factors around a specific influencing situation. The success of our recommendations are influenced by the context of those recommendations. Nothing surprising there. What is surprising is that the context can be arbitrary. Our choices are influenced by contextual factors that may have nothing to do with the specific decision. For instance, people who are exposed to sporting images are more likely to react competitively even if the situation is very different.

This probably explains why metaphor and analogy are so powerful tools for influence. It seems that the accuracy of the analogy (in terms of the relevance to the specific situation) is less significant than the underlying meaning.

This all poses some interesting questions. How should we chose metaphors? Where should they be used?

And also reinforces the use of story as an influencing tool.

More of this in “Predictabible Irrationality” – Dan Ariely.

Interested in your thoughts.