Bold Words

The last few weeks I’ve had cause to give thanks to Norman Breakey. He invented the paint roller, a tool many of you have an intimate acquaintance with. By tweaking a basic idea (the paintbrush), the roller takes a previously tedious task and speeds up the process. A potential user requires minimal retraining in order to take advantage of the roller’s benefits over a paint brush in large areas. However, while a roller takes care of the big spaces, there’s still a need for the paintbrush. The small areas, areas with detail, require the lighter, more specific touch of a paintbrush.

For example, if I tried to paint the wall right by the ceiling with the roller, I usually got wall paint on the ceiling, requiring touch ups. When I took the time to trim out the edge with a paint brush, touch ups were rarely required. My experience has shown that using the right tool at the right time can make all the difference in the final results. I’ve seen a similar thing happening online.

Does Facebook or Twitter work for every situation? Drilling down even further, does every aspect of your life belong on Facebook or broadcast via Twitter? I’ve wondered about our willingness to embrace every new tool as the answer to both real and make believe problems. Even more curious is our continued search and expectation for new tools.

The initial excitement over tools like Facebook and Twitter diminishes as people become familiar with the quirks. Then the questions and criticisms become louder and more frequent. Calls for the next version, the next tool begin almost immediately, raising the question that Noah Kagen highlighted last week: “When is something good enough Not to change?”

Over time, tweaks to the paint roller have made it easier to move, but the basics stayed the same because the underlying idea had lasting value. Maybe that’s the other question we need to ask about the tools we use, Does the underlying value have staying power that holds up over time?

Comments?

There’s an interesting, and what could be considered nonpolitical, thing happening on the Republican side of the presidential campaign: the five front runners have all invoked the ghost of Ronald Reagan to promote the legitimacy of their campaigns. Why is this important? For now, ignore the contradiction of them claiming to be candidates of change and consider this: these presidential hopefuls are equating themselves to the past. What would happen if a business positioned itself as the standard bearer for a company long past its prime?

The past is where it’s at for a reason. Ideally, we learn from the past and make plans for the future that apply those lessons. However, I don’t think you’ve actually applied a lesson if you’re claiming to be the modern day incarnation of the past. The issues and problems of 20+ years ago are not the exact ones either a business or a country faces today. Any time I hear someone positioning him or herself in relation to the past, I start to wonder.

For example, what would you think of a company that claims the title of today’s Enron? Ludicrous, right? But that’s exactly what happens in politics. The politicians hope we forget Iran-Contra, the Bay of Pigs, the Gulf of Tonkin, and Watergate when they invoke political leaders from the past. It’s one of the few industries that subscribes to the ignorance theory: if I ignore it, maybe everyone else will, too.

In the business world, consumers and investors have longer memories. We’d never touch a company claiming to be the new Enron. In fact, companies associated with bad events or issues change their names (e.g., Arthur Anderson becomes Accenture, Amway becomes Quixtar, Philip Morris becomes Altria, etc.). We challenge this practice more in the business world (still not as much as I think we should), but we swoon for politicians when they throw out Kennedy, Reagan, et. al., as the leaders who molded their beliefs, as their modern-day heirs.

The next time you hear anyone—in business or in politics—lay claim to the past as some heir apparent, raise both eyebrows. I don’t want an immortal Regan as president nor do I want the next Ken Lay running the company where I own stock. I want individuals who are grounded in today’s world, students of the past, but with an understanding that the future will likely hold new challenges. Those leaders are the individuals of change we desperately need in this world—not the people busy trying to reclaim the past.

Comments?

I suspect very few of you watched the debate Saturday evening, giving that it was a Saturday night and playing opposite a football game. Regardless of your politics, one big idea stuck out that applies to everyone, and not just politicians. It’s the idea of change.

A good chunk of both debates involved the candidates, particularly the Republicans, arguing with each other about who is best equipped to bring about change. According to Gov. Mitt Romney, during Saturday’s debate:

“…this is a time when America wants change. Washington is broken. That was the message coming out of Iowa. I’ve heard it across the country. Washington is broken. Not just the White House, not just Congress—Washington can’t get the job done on immigration, on lowering taxes, on fixing schools, on getting health care, on overcoming radical jihad. They want change.” (link)

In case your wondering, we want change. I shouldn’t poke too much at Romney, but I think he’s missing an important point. When it comes to change, actions speak louder than words, and his actions are making it easier for people to wonder about his rhetoric on change. Then, as candidate Giuliani points out:

“…change is a concept. Is it change for good or change for bad?”(link)

In the real world, I believe many people abhor change, otherwise, I can’t believe they’d continue to vote for the same people that make a mess of things in Washington, D.C., but perhaps that more of a lesser of two evils issue. Any time I hear a political candidate, or anyone for that matter, tout themselves as standing at the forefront of change, I cringe a bit. For me, change is one of those things that you either do or you don’t, so why waste time talking about it?

True Changers

For example, while I have mixed emotions about Apple as a company, they continue to produce products that change things. The business world seems more comfortable with true change than the political world. I would place very few politicians in the category of being true change leaders. Historically, we know who the great changers in politics were—the Founding Fathers, Lincoln, Roosevelt (both of them)—and it’s highly doubtful we’ll see their like again given how we currently elect officials.

I not sure when or where I heard it, but I do remember being told that it takes three weeks to form a habit, but at least twice that to break one, if you ever do. That’s why I find rhetoric focusing on change so interesting. As change is described, both in politics and everyday life, I have my doubts that society could truly withstand it if all described changes were enacted. I think there would be a large number of mental breakdowns if suddenly everything changed, but that doesn’t keep politicians or CEOs from touting the value of change.

Respect for Change

I’m not opposed to change, but I would prefer that it be spoken about honestly instead of thrown about casually in a stump speech. For all that we talk about it frequently, I think we overlook how important and big change can be, and its impact on our lives. Just consider some of the “minor” changes that happen in our lives.

For good or bad, starting a new job is a huge change that can be mentally draining—meeting new people, learning new systems, creating new routines to name a few. The same thing happens when you move to a new place. It doesn’t matter if it’s better than the old one. You’re still living through a change that requires adjustments. Now, just imagine people’s reactions if they suddenly woke up and had a government that truly changed every time there’s an election. I wonder if the country could continue to run.

My recommendation? Take the talk about change lightly and focus on the people who are actually doing something different. And maybe consider having more respect for the power of true change, because I believe the good kind is an endangered species.

Comments?

(Image courtesy of 416style. Some rights reserved.)

Today, I’m headed to the BlogWorld & New Media Expo. A little over a year ago, I went to my first “new media” conference, the first Futures of Entertainment at MIT. I’m bummed I won’t be able to attend this year’s event, but there was some fantastic live-blogging last year by Rachel Clarke, so hopefully she or someone else will provide equally fabulous coverage. In general, I’m amazed to consider where I am this year versus where I was even one year ago. However, what I consider to be my huge life change started much earlier.

Eighteen months ago, my old boss did me the favor of introducing me to Hugh MacLeod’s work at gapingvoid and The Hugh Train. I have my suspicions that if my boss knew he was planting the seeds for my eventual resignation, he wouldn’t have been so free with his information. gapingvoid was the first “real” blog I read. From there, it was all downhill.

I’d heard of blogs and tried a short-lived experiment at LiveJournal. I didn’t realize that people like Hugh were out there, writing about topics that I has passion for. Then, I found the Futures of Entertainment Conference and that’s where I met Rachel. It became clear very quickly that I hadn’t even scratched the service of what was possible.

By the time SXSW rolled around last March, I was 100% hooked. The day I got back from the conference, I gave notice, and I haven’t looked back. Since then, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting people like David Seah, Robert Scoble, Ewan Spence, and Chris Brogan. The great part? I’ve “met” still more people via their blogs and sites (hi Corrie and Penny) and have loved trading ideas back and forth. The underlying idea for this blog actually comes from many of the conversations I’ve had with these amazing people.

My life has changed in ways I would have never thought possible less than two years ago. So to people like Hugh, Rachel, and Dave, thank you for being bold before I ever thought it possible.

Comments?

Yesterday, I ran into someone I see about once a year. I’ve known this person for probably close to 20 years. Even though he’s only a few years older than I, without fail, every time he see me, he remarks on how I haven’t changed at all. The whole exchange made me wonder, how many people actually believe that individuals, and even institutions, don’t change over time?

For many things, we appreciate continuity, the sense of something lasting. We search for a lodestone to hold onto. We want our friends to be our friends forever. We want our families to stay together and be happy. We want to go to the same doctor, dentist, and hair dresser. We take comfort in certain things staying the same. It makes it easier to deal with the other parts of life that are always changing.

In the Voting Booth

Politicians get that. I suspect we see so many images of “times gone past” and hear stirring declarations of “how the world should be” because we want to believe in the American ideal, the American dream of a better life. So we continue to vote the same back-slapping, pork-spending, favor-granting politicians into office, because the candidates who tell the truth, that choices must be made, don’t support our need for comfortable continuity. Sometimes, continuity requires sacrifice.

Winston Churchill understood that, and in his speech after the fall of France, he made it clear that Britain had two choices:

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us.

Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, ‘This was their finest hour.’ (link)

I’d be curious to know from everyone reading this post, will you vote for the individuals currently representing you in Congress, based on their record? I ask because I know some elected officials do try to represent the interests of their constituents, regardless of party, but are pushed back because of the difficulty in dealing with the majority.

At the Checkout Stand

A similar thing happens in business, too. We’re encouraged to show brand loyalty, we’re led to believe that the purchase of a particular product will somehow enhance our lives. The story also implies that if we stop purchasing a particular brand, we’ve broken the continuity, that somehow, an essential part of ourselves will be missing.

Apple does a particularly good job of telling this story. In spite of closing the iPhone to all but minor development via the Safari browser, people still stood in line. Now, the creative individuals who hacked their iPhone are faced with an update that will turn their phones into bricks. But people, like Wil Shipley, still love Apple, even as they struggle with the closed system.

Sure, Apple’s still doing a ton of innovating. I love Leopard. I love iPhone (x19). I love my iPods (x6). And I love the engineers at Apple and all my friends throughout the company.

But Apple has to always remember that simply making money CANNOT be its point of existence. The point of any company should be to make customers want to give it money, NOT to get money from customers. It’s a subtle distinction that is the difference between good and evil.

Does Continuity Have Room for Change?

Back to the original story…I know that the core characteristics that make up me haven’t changed a great deal in the last 20 years. However, the little bits and pieces that actually round me out have change extensively. Those pieces are the ones we skip over when we latch onto this idea of continuity.

We make a blanket statement that something or someone hasn’t changed or is exactly the same, and we miss the little tells that would indicate otherwise. And we assume, that this apparent lack of change is a “good” thing. The earlier assessment that someone or something hasn’t changed leads us to believe we know enough to make our judgment.

But aren’t we kidding ourselves? Do we really want to go to a doctor, for example, that isn’t familiar with the latest procedures and treatments? Continuity’s danger isn’t our desire for that which we know, it’s our willingness to be blind to the little things that can and do change, even as the core remains the same.

Comments?

by: Jeope Wolfe

Why do we traditionally carve pumpkins? Why not some other gourd-like fruit? I ask, because I saw a random news story today about the potential pumpkin shortage at Halloween.

Scorching weather and lack of rain this summer wiped out some pumpkin crops from western New York to Illinois, leaving fields dotted with undersized fruit. Other fields got too much rain and their crops rotted. Pumpkin production is predicted to be down for the second straight year.

What will you carve if you can’t find a pumpkin this year?

Following a similar train of thought, what do you do when your traditions look like they might be challenged? Do you ask why your traditions are what they are or do you fight the question? Thoreau had the wisdom to see that, “Things do not change; we change.” (link) So, if we are the ones doing the changing, isn’t it all in our control?

Change, which implies breaking with tradition, was a favorite topic for many off-site employee meetings I attended. We’d break into teams and create these huge lists of how to do things better, how we could outdo tradition. Interestingly enough, little of the conversation dealt with how the tradition came about, in essence creating one of those Catch-22s—how can you avoid the same mistakes with the new changes if you don’t know how the problems started?

Traditions exist for a reason, which in many instances, includes convenience. Our modern day Jack O’Lanterns are based on an old Irish tale about a deal with the devil that goes bad. Immigrants from England, Scotland, and Ireland, used to carving their lanterns in turnips, were happy to move up to the larger carving surface. If pumpkins hadn’t been native to North America, what are the odds that traditional lantern carving would have grown to include them?

Sometimes, we ignore the role of circumstance in tradition, and it often makes us defensive when we’re questioned about traditions. In the end, maybe it isn’t traditions that trip us up so much as it’s our belief about where the traditions come from. I’ve always found an amazing amount of clarity when you go to the source. Outside forces protecting the tradition, without question, sometimes have ulterior motives, but not always, so it helps to have the “real” story.

For instance, think about what happens when you start a new job. You have two options: you can take the time to understand (there’s a difference between understanding and embracing) the traditions of your predecessor, or you can rush in, say everything needs to change, and offend almost everyone. You’re all smart people. I think you see the value in the first option and the danger in the second.

Perhaps it’s time we paid more attention to understanding actions rather than attempting to counteract them without thought. Maybe that’s a tradition worth protecting. I wish you luck in finding your pumpkin this year. If not, I hope it helps to know that you can carve something else. I believe turnips are readily available.

Comments?