"Let's go to the pub and have a few drinks and we'll sort it out", a common line heard around many work places as the days end or the week comes to a close and not every work issue has been solved. A few drinks and we seem to be on fire, shooting off opinions and answers to problems that have had us stumped all day. A few drinks and we really mean what we say, with more creativity than we could muster in that 10 o'clock meeting. A few more drinks and we need to know when to go home.
A research paper "Lost in the Sauce" recently published by the University of Pittsburgh and UC Santa Barbara, looking for that creative link between just the right amount of alcohol and brilliant ideas used vodka and cranberry juice to bring out some interesting results. Researchers at another University in Chicago, also looked at alcohol as the release trigger to creative thinking, giving me hope that Universities have not strayed too far from my days at the Uni bar, where the most original thinking took place.
Seems the research showed dramatic improvement in solving puzzles, maths equations and word association tests, with people describing their answers as more intuitive and indicating their thinking was less constrained and more open to creative solutions presenting themselves. Neuroscientists long ago described the power of alcohol as aiding the mind to wander without inhibitions and opening up connections not obvious in linear thinking. With your mind free to wander around the problem without so called cognitive processing, answers come from areas we don't often use or connect. Sounds like the neuro boys liked a beer after work.
The alcoholic research was also published in the journal of Consciousness and Cognition with the theory stating alcohol caused people to pay less attention to the distractions of tasks, giving them access to "solution cues that would otherwise be ignored". So should we bring back the boardroom bar, the beers in the kitchen or the long boozy lunch? Maybe the boys on Madmen have the right idea with the clinking of whiskey glasses at all hours of the day, getting their creative juices flowing and coming up with the iconic advertising phrases of the 60s. Alcohol seems like a good idea for some, but what researchers are trying to get to, is the time we are most open to creative thinking is when we relax, take a breather, get away from work and maybe even day dream in the park at lunch time. How often has a solution come to me on the way home from work, on the treadmill at the gym or just sitting with a coffee enjoying a quiet moment?
So if your company doesn't provide the beanbag room or pool tables to relax, maybe it's time to walk up the street and into the pub. After all, why should you be apologising for that drink in the middle of the day, you are only getting creative and that's good for the company. Anyway I'm off to the pub to write my next blog.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Wasted days and Wasted nights.
Freddy Fender may have been talking about a lost love but the title of his 70's hit could just as easily have been about unproductive employees in today's workplace. The latest Ernst and Young productivity survey puts the cost of wasted time at $40 billion per year, focusing on workers wasting an average of 23% of their time on the job. Now the first thought that comes to mind is the distraction of the net and social media, as people update their profiles and chat with friends but productive time lost, is about attitude, culture, meetings, sick leave and the general malaise that comes with disengaged employees.
So to get time to waste, you first need someone to give you that time and what better person than your employer, who looks to you to be a productive part of the company but without engaging you, can turn you into a slacker. Now we all know someone like that, hiding behind the tidy desk, never being involved in the "big" projects and generally uninvolved in day to day work activities. Interestingly enough, the survey turned that opinion on its head indicating unproductive employees actually took less breaks and less recreational time, not recognising work life balance and instead becoming “a slave to the job but only doing it because it is a job.” So it's not always about the time spent at work but how that work is accomplished and what results come from the work.
The survey did agree with some obvious observations, taking excessive sick leave, with three weeks to three months per year seen as an unproductive indicator, no kidding. Other findings included spending all day at your inbox and answering every email, even when you are just CCed. The inbox has everyone captive but research indicates focus on projects keeps people away from email, not looking at every opportunity but doing it in batches. Scheduling also comes in for a hiding as time wasters fill their diary up with the most inane meetings and committees that have nothing to do with accomplishing tasks or achieving success for the company. This high end scheduling gives great cause for excuses not to be involved and is seen by many in the office as fudging the real work. Companies that adhere to the "without a meeting we can't make a decision" syndrome are just playing into the hands of wasted time.
Research on wasted time in the office, split employees into four groups, super achievers, solid contributors, patchy participants and lost souls, saying at some stage in our working lives, we all rotate through those groups depending on circumstances. The patchies and the lost are finding less places to hide nowadays as companies run lean, marry their staff to targets and KPIs, eliminate distractions and try to motivate staff with realistic goals.
It's the motivation and engagement that become crucial as businesses trend in cycles of success and failure. Both become easy cycles to hide in, if management doesn't understand their employees. So ask yourself, who's doing what and what is being accomplished by whom? You'll find your slackers pretty quickly, unless they are off on sick leave.
So to get time to waste, you first need someone to give you that time and what better person than your employer, who looks to you to be a productive part of the company but without engaging you, can turn you into a slacker. Now we all know someone like that, hiding behind the tidy desk, never being involved in the "big" projects and generally uninvolved in day to day work activities. Interestingly enough, the survey turned that opinion on its head indicating unproductive employees actually took less breaks and less recreational time, not recognising work life balance and instead becoming “a slave to the job but only doing it because it is a job.” So it's not always about the time spent at work but how that work is accomplished and what results come from the work.
The survey did agree with some obvious observations, taking excessive sick leave, with three weeks to three months per year seen as an unproductive indicator, no kidding. Other findings included spending all day at your inbox and answering every email, even when you are just CCed. The inbox has everyone captive but research indicates focus on projects keeps people away from email, not looking at every opportunity but doing it in batches. Scheduling also comes in for a hiding as time wasters fill their diary up with the most inane meetings and committees that have nothing to do with accomplishing tasks or achieving success for the company. This high end scheduling gives great cause for excuses not to be involved and is seen by many in the office as fudging the real work. Companies that adhere to the "without a meeting we can't make a decision" syndrome are just playing into the hands of wasted time.
Research on wasted time in the office, split employees into four groups, super achievers, solid contributors, patchy participants and lost souls, saying at some stage in our working lives, we all rotate through those groups depending on circumstances. The patchies and the lost are finding less places to hide nowadays as companies run lean, marry their staff to targets and KPIs, eliminate distractions and try to motivate staff with realistic goals.
It's the motivation and engagement that become crucial as businesses trend in cycles of success and failure. Both become easy cycles to hide in, if management doesn't understand their employees. So ask yourself, who's doing what and what is being accomplished by whom? You'll find your slackers pretty quickly, unless they are off on sick leave.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Connected or not?
The story isn't new, it's been going on for the last decade as technology infiltrates all the nooks and crannies of our lives and brings about changes, some good, some we think are good and some we just have no idea about. The big story of connection has been publicised, commercialised and most of all socialised as our lives become running serials played out on all manner of internet stages. The net has become the great detective, delving back into our lives to reconnect, for just a second, with that long lost boyfriend from school, past colleagues and the flotsam and jetsam that made an impact but not always enough to be worthy of belonging to your inner circle.
The post office no longer delivers letters because we have become accustomed to instant replies and quick snatches of conversation over WiFi that make the walk to the letter box obsolete. Those letters were a connection to anyone outside your town or city and the more you wrote the better connected you became. They usually consisted of relevant news, a show of undying love for someone, family ties and a link across the miles to make someone feel closer. Letters were bulky, lengthy, involved, complicated, heartfelt and took a while to compile and because of this, you chose wisely, the recipients who would read your thoughts with reverence attached.
Aside from people you saw everyday, letters were the closest thing to a connection or relationship, until that new fangled technology, the phone, turned up and we embraced another avenue to connect. Technology hasn't stopped since then and today it has fragmented our relationships into bytes of connections that scatter our affection and our attention so wide, sociologist think it has become impossible to give everyone the time they deserve. When they look at relationships, it is face to face that is considered the most important with great worth attached to conversations over a meal, a gathering of friends at the local, or to be in the moment with someone close? These are the difficult measures within the new technology landscape where we say we are connected, but to what extent?
Sociologists and psychologists suggest we are not as connected as we used to be and our online connections are shallow and not worthwhile and point to internet activities like online dating, where connections seldom reach a relationship stage, even after finally meeting. The nearly one billion on Facebook would likely disagree and see their connections as worthwhile and talk about the changes in relationship, where the focus is on many not just a select few.
We are becoming used to the speed of our world and always being connected and maybe our relationships don't require as in depth and lengthy touches as the letters of bygone years? If we are always connected and touch, ever so briefly, on a more constant basis, then we are surely making up for the long letters no matter how heartfelt they may have been. Constant touch gives a surety to relationships, which the net has been able to reproduce in many forms. Who hasn't sent pictures to Grandma, who hasn't sent an e-Birthday card and who hasn't marvelled at a smiling face Skyping from far away? All done quickly, all done easily and all done with forethought for the receiver.
Connections and relationships are what you make of them, no matter the medium and no matter the communication methods used. Why not sent Granny a text today?
The post office no longer delivers letters because we have become accustomed to instant replies and quick snatches of conversation over WiFi that make the walk to the letter box obsolete. Those letters were a connection to anyone outside your town or city and the more you wrote the better connected you became. They usually consisted of relevant news, a show of undying love for someone, family ties and a link across the miles to make someone feel closer. Letters were bulky, lengthy, involved, complicated, heartfelt and took a while to compile and because of this, you chose wisely, the recipients who would read your thoughts with reverence attached.
Aside from people you saw everyday, letters were the closest thing to a connection or relationship, until that new fangled technology, the phone, turned up and we embraced another avenue to connect. Technology hasn't stopped since then and today it has fragmented our relationships into bytes of connections that scatter our affection and our attention so wide, sociologist think it has become impossible to give everyone the time they deserve. When they look at relationships, it is face to face that is considered the most important with great worth attached to conversations over a meal, a gathering of friends at the local, or to be in the moment with someone close? These are the difficult measures within the new technology landscape where we say we are connected, but to what extent?
Sociologists and psychologists suggest we are not as connected as we used to be and our online connections are shallow and not worthwhile and point to internet activities like online dating, where connections seldom reach a relationship stage, even after finally meeting. The nearly one billion on Facebook would likely disagree and see their connections as worthwhile and talk about the changes in relationship, where the focus is on many not just a select few.
We are becoming used to the speed of our world and always being connected and maybe our relationships don't require as in depth and lengthy touches as the letters of bygone years? If we are always connected and touch, ever so briefly, on a more constant basis, then we are surely making up for the long letters no matter how heartfelt they may have been. Constant touch gives a surety to relationships, which the net has been able to reproduce in many forms. Who hasn't sent pictures to Grandma, who hasn't sent an e-Birthday card and who hasn't marvelled at a smiling face Skyping from far away? All done quickly, all done easily and all done with forethought for the receiver.
Connections and relationships are what you make of them, no matter the medium and no matter the communication methods used. Why not sent Granny a text today?
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Mirror Mirror.
On the wall, who is the fairest of them all and who will get that job or that promotion? Studies show attractive women get all the breaks at work when it comes to getting to the next level because they are seen as positive, sensitive and poised. "Don't hate me because I'm beautiful", is the cry of many affected by the attractive gene, so how do the rest of us fight back? Haven't they seen Snow White and the evil Queen, okay maybe Charlize Theron is not a good example. The first 5 seconds, so important for making an impression, must seem easy for someone like Charlize and the "pretty" women who follow in her footsteps? I fully understand I am skating on thin ice but don't shoot the messenger, especially when there is a twist to the story.
A further study out of Ariel University in Israel, found attractive women going for employment, found it harder to get interviews than so called plain Janes. So the stereotyping taking place at work, where "pretty" women were seen as having the advantage, was in reverse for CVs, as companies correlated attractiveness with being less qualified and not as bright as the plain Jane applicants ( oooooh dangerous territory). Not wanting the "dumb blonde" monicker to be the final arbiter on the study, more research was done with photos rated on how intelligent people looked and found there was no correlation between beauty and not being able to hit the books, meaning they needed to dig deeper. Dig they did and the final assumption, finding, was related to the high level of women in human resources, tasked with choosing the applicants. Seems 93% of selectors were women and the study pointed at jealousy as the unavoidable conclusion, finding them choosing the plain Jane over the "pretty woman". I hope the researchers remain anonymous because if they ever need a job they had better find the appropriate head shot to get them to the first interview.
So thinking about the above, from my side, I had a chat with good mate Patrick Dobbin, who works as an image consultant for men only. Pease note the subtle and and yet slightly overt plug for Patrick Dobbin and Associates at http://imageconsultantformen.com.au/. As you might expect the above research did show that men who had made the effort to improve their image fared much better in interviews, promotions and general acceptance in the work place. Something that Patrick agrees with and something that can be accomplished with his help. Yes I thought about it, but came to the quick realisation that I'm beyond help and not even Patrick could work that miracle.
The fact remains we are still an image obsessed society and it spills over into the work place with both sides of the argument affected. We need to dig a little deeper into people and go beyond the veneer because skills, knowledge and ability to do the job are always more important than the next model that walks through your door. Patrick I'll give you a call later.
A further study out of Ariel University in Israel, found attractive women going for employment, found it harder to get interviews than so called plain Janes. So the stereotyping taking place at work, where "pretty" women were seen as having the advantage, was in reverse for CVs, as companies correlated attractiveness with being less qualified and not as bright as the plain Jane applicants ( oooooh dangerous territory). Not wanting the "dumb blonde" monicker to be the final arbiter on the study, more research was done with photos rated on how intelligent people looked and found there was no correlation between beauty and not being able to hit the books, meaning they needed to dig deeper. Dig they did and the final assumption, finding, was related to the high level of women in human resources, tasked with choosing the applicants. Seems 93% of selectors were women and the study pointed at jealousy as the unavoidable conclusion, finding them choosing the plain Jane over the "pretty woman". I hope the researchers remain anonymous because if they ever need a job they had better find the appropriate head shot to get them to the first interview.
So thinking about the above, from my side, I had a chat with good mate Patrick Dobbin, who works as an image consultant for men only. Pease note the subtle and and yet slightly overt plug for Patrick Dobbin and Associates at http://imageconsultantformen.com.au/. As you might expect the above research did show that men who had made the effort to improve their image fared much better in interviews, promotions and general acceptance in the work place. Something that Patrick agrees with and something that can be accomplished with his help. Yes I thought about it, but came to the quick realisation that I'm beyond help and not even Patrick could work that miracle.
The fact remains we are still an image obsessed society and it spills over into the work place with both sides of the argument affected. We need to dig a little deeper into people and go beyond the veneer because skills, knowledge and ability to do the job are always more important than the next model that walks through your door. Patrick I'll give you a call later.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Safety doesn't happen by accident.
If you are looking to avoid becoming a crime statistic while travelling on your holidays, there are many ways to protect yourself, keep your documents safe and come home in one piece. Certainly a good dose of common sense goes a long way, along with knowing about your destination and travelling with experienced travellers or travel companies. Safe traveller advice from government sites, making sure you are adequately insured, mobile messaging and information and having the back up of international companies like iSOS also give travellers peace of mind.
If you want to avoid all of the above then the easiest way to stay out of trouble is to travel to only the safest cities. Just down the road from Disneyland is the city of Irvine, which has been nominated as the safest city in America, by the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, for the eighth year in a row. I used to visit my best friends, who lived there for a couple of years and "Disneyland suburban" is not a bad analogy for the manicured streets, row after row of groomed gardens leading to leafy shopping malls with not a policeman in sight. Irvine works hard at being a city looking to attract people on lifestyle choices and along with those choices, comes the safety factor which provides the cherry on top of a cake everyone wants to eat.
Along with FBI reports you can check out the Global City Reviews and Personal Safety Rankings by Mercer, which are based on measures of internal stability, crime levels, law enforcement effectiveness and host country international. It comes as no surprise that the cities high on the list of most liveable are also high on safety. European cities dominated the top ten most liveable cities with Vienna, again named best city in the world, along with Zurich, Munich, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Geneva and Bern. Our friends across the Tasman in Auckland and the always friendly Canucks in Vancouver also made it onto the top ten list.
With so many cities in the top ten, European cities rank high on the personal safety ranking, with Luxembourg, Bern, Helsinki, Zurich and Vienna ranking in the top five. Within the Asia Pacific region it comes as no surprise that Singapore ranks the safest, after all, benevolent dictatorship has a lot going for it, as long as you don't chew gum and wear long hair. Sorry that must have been a 70s flashback. Our capital cities rank 25th in safety within the Asia Pac region, which leaves plenty of room for improvement.
When looking at the Mercer lists, it becomes obvious the world we know is becoming a safer place to travel but for many that isn't enough and there will always be a need to visit the edges. Edges in Africa, Central and South America along with unexplored Asia will always attract travellers wanting to see the occasional gun, chaos and things not seen by their neighbours, who just booked on the latest European vacation.
If you want to avoid all of the above then the easiest way to stay out of trouble is to travel to only the safest cities. Just down the road from Disneyland is the city of Irvine, which has been nominated as the safest city in America, by the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Report, for the eighth year in a row. I used to visit my best friends, who lived there for a couple of years and "Disneyland suburban" is not a bad analogy for the manicured streets, row after row of groomed gardens leading to leafy shopping malls with not a policeman in sight. Irvine works hard at being a city looking to attract people on lifestyle choices and along with those choices, comes the safety factor which provides the cherry on top of a cake everyone wants to eat.
Along with FBI reports you can check out the Global City Reviews and Personal Safety Rankings by Mercer, which are based on measures of internal stability, crime levels, law enforcement effectiveness and host country international. It comes as no surprise that the cities high on the list of most liveable are also high on safety. European cities dominated the top ten most liveable cities with Vienna, again named best city in the world, along with Zurich, Munich, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Geneva and Bern. Our friends across the Tasman in Auckland and the always friendly Canucks in Vancouver also made it onto the top ten list.
With so many cities in the top ten, European cities rank high on the personal safety ranking, with Luxembourg, Bern, Helsinki, Zurich and Vienna ranking in the top five. Within the Asia Pacific region it comes as no surprise that Singapore ranks the safest, after all, benevolent dictatorship has a lot going for it, as long as you don't chew gum and wear long hair. Sorry that must have been a 70s flashback. Our capital cities rank 25th in safety within the Asia Pac region, which leaves plenty of room for improvement.
When looking at the Mercer lists, it becomes obvious the world we know is becoming a safer place to travel but for many that isn't enough and there will always be a need to visit the edges. Edges in Africa, Central and South America along with unexplored Asia will always attract travellers wanting to see the occasional gun, chaos and things not seen by their neighbours, who just booked on the latest European vacation.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Impact Jobs.
The latest research to come from "What workers want in 2012", surveying students and prospective employees looking to enter the work force along with employed Gen Y, Gen X and Boomers looked at aspects of life goals, job satisfaction and the need to make an impact. The need to make an impact for some was more important than having kids, more important than prestigious careers and for many, more important than wealth. Seems the lack of wealth required, came from the idealistic young, not yet cynical from years at the coal face, but others employed, indicated that making a difference and doing good would certainly allay their need to have continuous financial gains.
Students and prospective employees were willing to take pay cuts to work for organisations that fitted with their image of themselves and whose values were aligned with their own. Boomers, who long ago set the bench mark for caring in the 60s, were the biggest demographic willing to volunteer outside of work and willing to boycott products or companies they did not agree with environmentally or who they thought lacked social responsibility. They were also the leaders when it came to wanting the right work life balance to achieve maximum social and environmental impact within their work environment.
As usual, women, no matter the demographic, cared more than men and 30% indicated they would take pay cuts to make a difference in their jobs. Men being the capitalistic pigs they are, were in the minority when taking pay cuts to make a difference, with only 19% indicating they would make that choice. For men, working at Playboy, was not one of the options but it would have increased the desire to make an impact and perhaps shown them in a better light statistically?
In the end, statistics can be read many ways but what can't be denied is the overall feeling, especially from prospective employees, the desire to make the world a better place to work in and live in. In hindsight, it sounds a lot like a bunch of 60s kids rallying against the war, standing up for civil rights, figuring out what being green was all about and generally wanting a better planet. The causes may not always be as obvious or pointed today, but people in general want to care more, know more and make a difference in their work environment. After all, what legacy do you want to be remembered for, getting the invoices in on time or making your work place better for others.
Socially and environmentally responsible companies will be the winners as they attract the brightest, the motivated and the compassionate. The 2012 Ethisphere Institute list of the world's most ethical companies, based on ethics and compliance programs, reputation, leadership and innovation, governance, corporate citizenship and responsibility will be the ones attracting the above future and current employees. Not all companies on that list are just about saving the planet, as global entities, Gap, Microsoft, Ford, eBay, Target , Cisco and UPS show you can be "a player" and still make a difference.
Students and prospective employees were willing to take pay cuts to work for organisations that fitted with their image of themselves and whose values were aligned with their own. Boomers, who long ago set the bench mark for caring in the 60s, were the biggest demographic willing to volunteer outside of work and willing to boycott products or companies they did not agree with environmentally or who they thought lacked social responsibility. They were also the leaders when it came to wanting the right work life balance to achieve maximum social and environmental impact within their work environment.
As usual, women, no matter the demographic, cared more than men and 30% indicated they would take pay cuts to make a difference in their jobs. Men being the capitalistic pigs they are, were in the minority when taking pay cuts to make a difference, with only 19% indicating they would make that choice. For men, working at Playboy, was not one of the options but it would have increased the desire to make an impact and perhaps shown them in a better light statistically?
In the end, statistics can be read many ways but what can't be denied is the overall feeling, especially from prospective employees, the desire to make the world a better place to work in and live in. In hindsight, it sounds a lot like a bunch of 60s kids rallying against the war, standing up for civil rights, figuring out what being green was all about and generally wanting a better planet. The causes may not always be as obvious or pointed today, but people in general want to care more, know more and make a difference in their work environment. After all, what legacy do you want to be remembered for, getting the invoices in on time or making your work place better for others.
Socially and environmentally responsible companies will be the winners as they attract the brightest, the motivated and the compassionate. The 2012 Ethisphere Institute list of the world's most ethical companies, based on ethics and compliance programs, reputation, leadership and innovation, governance, corporate citizenship and responsibility will be the ones attracting the above future and current employees. Not all companies on that list are just about saving the planet, as global entities, Gap, Microsoft, Ford, eBay, Target , Cisco and UPS show you can be "a player" and still make a difference.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Still dying but not dead.
Advanced book binding 101 was always the joke, when talking about athletes taking easy classes to get credit points to pass. I don't know what they are taking now that the death of books continues its global tour. Since last year, when we first talked about e books published overtaking traditional books published, the emphasis for online has increased to the extent that when searching for the death of books, you now end up with over 12 million matches. That's millions of articles and insights on the end of paper published books as we know them, along with bemoaning the rise of the online devil, killing an established part of our lives.
Everyone has read the rudimentary story about the e-shift and how it is affecting the entire publishing industry and all the sectors that service that sector. Book seller to the world Amazon, has long since jumped the shark tank and now sell more e-books than papyrus models and without making the joke passé, Kindle has made kindling of its paper competition. Jeff Bezos is not the devil, just a successful entrepreneur who has disrupted a legacy industry and found ways to make more books available online in more than one iteration.
If we are reading more, regardless of the form it takes, surely that's a good thing. The idea of a book just in paper will become a nostalgic memory of dog eared pages, occasional paper cuts and libraries daunting in their scale of collection. Print will remain and the faithful will hunt out limited printings but when your favourite author goes online and stays online, the choice becomes more obvious. Books have been around my entire life but history shows us otherwise and paper has only been prevalent since the mid 1500's.
It will be interesting to see if Bezos will be enshrined like Gutenberg, who changed the way stories were passed on from animal skins to the printing press. For aside form creating chaos within the publishing industry, Amazon and a raft of others, has created the opportunity for anyone to tell their story and be published online. No longer is a book the domain of the serious author with his leather elbow patches on display, waiting for Hollywood to take out an option on his story.
Today we all have the opportunity to write, to tell stories, to inform, to critique and to express opinions and insights, no matter how small the reading circle may be. It's not all Pulitzer or Nobel Prize winning literature but just about all of it finds an audience, even if that audience is only a mother or a close friend. The lament regarding the death of books needs to be replaced with the joy of possibility and opportunity, for anyone to tell their stories. Best sellers will come to mean something different in years to come with no capital expense required to publish, the audience size could be global, local or even family.
After all, whose mother wouldn't want to see their kids in print and having one person read and appreciate your writing is sometimes enough to make it feel like a best seller. Books aren't dead, they are alive and thriving and coming to a tablet, a reader or even a phone near you.
Everyone has read the rudimentary story about the e-shift and how it is affecting the entire publishing industry and all the sectors that service that sector. Book seller to the world Amazon, has long since jumped the shark tank and now sell more e-books than papyrus models and without making the joke passé, Kindle has made kindling of its paper competition. Jeff Bezos is not the devil, just a successful entrepreneur who has disrupted a legacy industry and found ways to make more books available online in more than one iteration.
If we are reading more, regardless of the form it takes, surely that's a good thing. The idea of a book just in paper will become a nostalgic memory of dog eared pages, occasional paper cuts and libraries daunting in their scale of collection. Print will remain and the faithful will hunt out limited printings but when your favourite author goes online and stays online, the choice becomes more obvious. Books have been around my entire life but history shows us otherwise and paper has only been prevalent since the mid 1500's.
It will be interesting to see if Bezos will be enshrined like Gutenberg, who changed the way stories were passed on from animal skins to the printing press. For aside form creating chaos within the publishing industry, Amazon and a raft of others, has created the opportunity for anyone to tell their story and be published online. No longer is a book the domain of the serious author with his leather elbow patches on display, waiting for Hollywood to take out an option on his story.
Today we all have the opportunity to write, to tell stories, to inform, to critique and to express opinions and insights, no matter how small the reading circle may be. It's not all Pulitzer or Nobel Prize winning literature but just about all of it finds an audience, even if that audience is only a mother or a close friend. The lament regarding the death of books needs to be replaced with the joy of possibility and opportunity, for anyone to tell their stories. Best sellers will come to mean something different in years to come with no capital expense required to publish, the audience size could be global, local or even family.
After all, whose mother wouldn't want to see their kids in print and having one person read and appreciate your writing is sometimes enough to make it feel like a best seller. Books aren't dead, they are alive and thriving and coming to a tablet, a reader or even a phone near you.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Stuck in the middle with you.
Who listens to the seat belt talk, when they sit down in a plane? I'm not sure, as Seth Godin points out in a recent article, there is anyone left in the world, who doesn't know how to put that clip into that buckle and pull low and tight across the waist? Yet flight attendants stand there with their favourite seat belt held at eye level and go through the spiel again and again and again. The airlines sight safety rules requiring the message be told ad nausea because you never know who might be on a plane for the first time. If you can get on a plane, the likelihood you arrived by car or have driven in a car, is high, and correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a car have the same seat belt concept we are talking about on the plane?
We've all heard it before in companies and situations where change needs to happen and the myopic reply "but we've always done it that way" comes flying back at you. It's the easiest comeback in the world, to stay stuck in the middle where equilibrium is the most comfortable but where you have no opportunity for change, challenge or achievement. The race to the middle, the race to mediocrity and "not rocking the boat" has become the realm where individuality and creativity go to die. In today's uncertain times people have become even more conservative in their views and actions, and the hunker down mentality is pervading all sections of industry, sucking everything into the middle.
Yet this is the time to look for change opportunity. After all, successful business people and entrepreneurs didn't achieve only on sunny days when things were going good, everything was rosy and without turmoil. The current uncertain global situation will throw up new businesses, new entrepreneurs and new product and services that will surprise people who can't find their way out of the middle. What's holding us back? Inertia, cynicism, fear, futility, peer group pressure, legacy thinking and complacency keeps the list growing, holding us back from change and success.
The only things that engender change are chaos that requires action for survival or the spirit of the individual in authority, willing to show dissent, take responsibility and bring about consequences that lead to change. Finding all three qualities in company employees can be difficult but if you look at the leading companies of today, you'll find individuals who have pushed the proverbial away from the middle. Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), A.G. Lafley (P&G) and Tony Hsieh (Zappos) have all disrupted their business models and that of their competitors because things don't always need to be done the same.
You have an opportunity to bring about change in your work place, even if it is only in quantum amounts. Likely you have a better picture of what your company can do better, because you are closer to your clients than the boss, you are in the field every day and you encounter the change required to bring about your future success.
"Clowns to left, jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you".
What are you waiting for?
We've all heard it before in companies and situations where change needs to happen and the myopic reply "but we've always done it that way" comes flying back at you. It's the easiest comeback in the world, to stay stuck in the middle where equilibrium is the most comfortable but where you have no opportunity for change, challenge or achievement. The race to the middle, the race to mediocrity and "not rocking the boat" has become the realm where individuality and creativity go to die. In today's uncertain times people have become even more conservative in their views and actions, and the hunker down mentality is pervading all sections of industry, sucking everything into the middle.
Yet this is the time to look for change opportunity. After all, successful business people and entrepreneurs didn't achieve only on sunny days when things were going good, everything was rosy and without turmoil. The current uncertain global situation will throw up new businesses, new entrepreneurs and new product and services that will surprise people who can't find their way out of the middle. What's holding us back? Inertia, cynicism, fear, futility, peer group pressure, legacy thinking and complacency keeps the list growing, holding us back from change and success.
The only things that engender change are chaos that requires action for survival or the spirit of the individual in authority, willing to show dissent, take responsibility and bring about consequences that lead to change. Finding all three qualities in company employees can be difficult but if you look at the leading companies of today, you'll find individuals who have pushed the proverbial away from the middle. Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Marc Benioff (Salesforce), A.G. Lafley (P&G) and Tony Hsieh (Zappos) have all disrupted their business models and that of their competitors because things don't always need to be done the same.
You have an opportunity to bring about change in your work place, even if it is only in quantum amounts. Likely you have a better picture of what your company can do better, because you are closer to your clients than the boss, you are in the field every day and you encounter the change required to bring about your future success.
"Clowns to left, jokers to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you".
What are you waiting for?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
