Inside The Zen Bubble

Regarding the naming of the book In Search of Excellence by Bob Waterman and Tom Peters, Walter Kiechel III writes:

Then, “hastily,” they say, they [Bob and Tom] put together what they called a “thought starter” with the one-word title, “Excellence.”

But -- why that particular word, I wonder?

I’m gonna stick my neck out and say: I’ll bet those guys were under the zen influence at the time. (The pic below is below-up-able.)

P.S. Waterman, Peters and Richard Pascale (all of McKinsey & Company) -- along with Tony Athos (of Harvard Business School) -- developed what eventually became the 7S framework.

Simply Illuminating, 1.01

Smithsonian Magazine called the production of The Saint John’s Bible, begun in 1998 under the artistic direction of Donald Jackson, “one of the extraordinary undertakings of our time.” Here's a set of images from four of its pages.  

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I’ve been a fan of Medieval and Renaissance illuminated manuscripts for so long that I automatically wonder, when I read the “business bibles” I read today (big, overarching guides to competing, winning and surviving), why the latter are so lame by comparison. Generally speaking.

I’ve yet to come across a business book that was hand-lettered or hand-illuminated. (Capital 'B') Biblical illuminations are designed to glorify the Word of God and transform it into a complementary art form; they're spiritual meditations on a text. Between the covers of the lower-case 'b' bibles on my shelf, there’s hardly any artwork at all.

Bottom line: the best manuscripts have played a role in informing the standards I use to judge other books. And not just 'cause of their artistry. There's more...

Beauty is what I'm trying, in a roundabout way, to get at. A huge, confusing subject, but one I'd like to continue to explore using examples of specific business-book things that've either added to or taken away from my perception of pleasure, meaning or satisfaction. In a short series of posts. With this intro as a backdrop.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

To ignite your imagination about what a book can still be, have a look-see: www.saintjohnsbible.org.

Speaking Of Pop-Up Books

Have you noticed the steady stream of national TV ads that makes use of simulated pop-up books? For companies like Bridgestone and JP Morgan Chase, and brands like Coors Light, Lexus and Chevy Malibu?*

I have some ideas as to why I like pop-up books, why I think they can be effective teaching tools, etc. (I’ve incorporated pop-ups and other paper engineering techniques in a "structural bookwork" about general management; see my Imagined Conversation post.) How come, though, the sudden widespread use and fascination?

I’m sure it has something to do with animation technologies that are making production more practical. And it’s probably easier now to locate (inspiring) examples and practitioners than ever before. But, is there something pro advertisers know about their audiences that’s leading 'em to believe pop-ups would be effective on TV? Is it just a fad amongst creative directors? Should we expect to see more?

Anybody got any ideas?

Here’s one of my favorite examples -- this for The Timken Company of good ol’ Canton, Ohio:

*Some other cos. and brands to add to the running list: Pearl Opticians. Mastercard. Ford Focus. Musselman’s Apple Sauce. 

Looking Through My Charlie Brown Lens

[My Amazon.com review of SHOCKPROOF by Debra Jacobs, Garrett Sheridan and Juan Pablo Gonzalez]

Linus: I told her (the little red-haired girl) about how you're madly in love with her

Charlie Brown: Aaugh!!

GOOD GRIEF. There’s too much marketing going on here. Even before page one, we’re introduced to the fact that “shockproofing” is now a verb (it isn’t, is it?) and, at the beginning o’ the prologue, to the Shockproof brand promise. That word then keeps appearing again and again, in all its related forms, throughout the book.

SIGH…I didn’t detect any signs of doubt. Is the Shockproof approach foolproof? Is it clearly superior to other approaches? Given the magnitude of their task, I found the authors’ certainty to be, at times: amazing, amusing, and a tad depressing.

AAUGH!! What strikes me as the group’s most original work has to do with dynamically *aligning* strategy, organization and people to achieve great results – but they don’t really get into the nuts and bolts of their alignment methods ‘til page 155. Once they do, IMO they do a better job of de-scribing than pre-scribing. [ Shockproof Lenses, for example, are key conceptual tools. They’re intended to heighten a leader’s awareness as to what parts of his or her business most need aligning. But, aside from providing a short list of questions to ponder (related to and organized by Lens-type: Systems, Value, Change, Interpersonal and Self-Awareness) the book gives no real instructions for methodically using the Lenses, day in and day out.]

OH ALRIGHT, LUCY, I’LL TRUST YOU** Despite my negativity, the last thing I want to do is discourage anyone from reading the book and judging it on its own merits. My expressions of dismay have more to do with the quality of the presentation, viewed through my Charlie Brown Lens, than with the quality of the Shockproof approach...which ('though I’m just a regular guy): makes sense, is comprehensive, seems easy enough to implement, and has a good track record. To add a bit more positivity -- the last chapter does a terrific job of spelling out exactly how any company can start using it.

**to hold on to the football.

Take Two Before Bedtime: The New Wonder Drug From Bain & Company

[My Amazon.com review of DECIDE & DELIVER by Marcia W. Blenko, Michael C. Mankins and Paul Rogers]

Your organization…can be the standout, the one that people point to, the one where everyone wants to work, the one that decides and delivers. Your organization can accomplish great things – beginning with its next decision.

What this book’s authors and their colleagues have done is fascinating. They’ve taken everything Bain has ever learned about [1.] making great decisions and [2.] the makings of great companies – synthesized them – and come up with a nifty, logically consistent and easy-to-digest approach that (they say) pretty much ensures Complete & Total Organizational Good Health.**

I really, really like the central premise: that a company can learn over time to increase the effectiveness of the decisions it makes, and, in the process, get all its moving parts working together to produce great results. I highly, highly recommend reading all about it.

Having said that…

I’d still feel compelled, if I were a business doctor, to offer a few words to the wise to those considering a decision-centered approach.

• First thing I’d say is you probably shouldn’t let the fact that it’s been boiled down to a 5-step process (in just 146 pages) mislead you to believe your company could master it overnight. Depending on your current state, you might still need to tackle lots and lots of sub-steps.
• I’d say, too, that it couldn’t hurt to keep in mind that the authors work for a gigantic consulting firm and there are no regulatory restrictions (like the ones placed on giant pharmaceutical firms, for example) on what they can say.

Whoa. What’s that about? Only that a small handful o’ their statements caused my b.s. meter to blip, statements to the effect that “other attempts to reshape organizations” and “traditional approaches to organization” – i.e., competing approaches – are inferior in one way or another to theirs. Those struck me as vague and not well substantiated. Just not up to the high quality standards of the rest of the book.

I like it best when the language is careful and understated. Take my favorite line as an example: “And decisions offer a practical point of entry into what would otherwise be a large and potentially overwhelming task.” That, to me, is the big selling point. That’s their ingenious contribution.

That’s a pill, if you will, I could confidently prescribe.

**when used as directed, of course!

Everything Else Comes After

Can you match the S.M.I.B.S.F. (Single Most Important Business Success Factor*) on the left with its description & source on the right?

Answers:

1. PASSION = John Hagel, et. al, The Power of Pull
2. OWNERSHIP & SELF-ACCOUNTABILITY = Les McKeown, Predictable Success
3. GUMPTION = Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

*a little clunky, no?

Wasted 15 Minutes

30 MINUTES. That’s how much time I alotted the other day (“so long as nothin’ else goes sideways”) to learn as much as I could by perusing the ABOUT pages found at managementexchange.com and unstructure.org respectively. I wanted to understand the objectives of the people involved, how their interests do or don’t jibe with mine, and how their overall approaches compare one-to-the-other.

Going in, I knew that the Management Innovation eXchange (MIX) and Unstructure were online platforms for exchanging ideas having to do with ‘speeding up’ the evolution of management. And that’s about it.

What I discovered is that the two groups /projects are similar in just about every significant way: 

• ISSUE: Management is an important social technology, but one that needs a facelift – pronto.
• RESPONSE: Provide an open source, i.e., democratic, environment in which anyone can contribute to new thinking about management's evolution.
• HOPE: That actionable, helpful ideas will emerge.

There were a few differences. (One of the MIX Team Members, for example, is Gary Hamel – a rock star, as management thinkers go. The fact that discussions there are centered around his “Moonshots for Management” stands out.) But none of the differences were so earth shattering as to keep me from bookmarking both sites and thinking about participating. I was impressed.

The Rest Of The Story

My 15 minutes at unstructure.org were up, but there was one more link that had my attention. It lead me away from its ABOUT page onto one of its discussion forum pages and –

Boy, was I surprised to find out that the most recent post was well over two hundred days old! On further review, it now appears as though the whole site’s inactive. I don’t know what the deal is. Was there a merger with MIX? A stoppage? If Unstructure is no more, I’m sorry about that. Seems like a lot of effort and good intentions went into building it.

I s’pose there are many morals to the story. The first that comes to mind is this: 

I knew from the start I was taking a slight risk. I should have asked upfront: Are there tools or strategies I can deploy that'll prevent me from squandering up to 30 minutes unnecessarily? Had I done that, I would have remembered what the authors of The Power of Pull point out, that there are ways “to sort through the noise to find the signals that can guide us.”

Their advice? If you want the time and effort you invest in focusing on stuff to pay off, make return on attention a top priority. There are search and serendipity tools that can assist. Their book does a nice job of introducing some of them.

Imagined Conversation*

Guy in Charge [G]: Every single thing about our company is broken and I don’t know how to fix it.

Me [M]: Care for some advice?

[G]: I s’pose it couldn’t hurt.

[M]: I’m happy to give you my best guess as to what you need to do.

[G]: Well, I have fifteen – make that fourteen – minutes.

[M]: Okay then. Here goes. All good companies make tactical adjustments all the time to keep on track. But they have to have good tracks in the first place...

[G]: Huh? Could you be more cryptic?

[M]: Let me rephrase that. You undoubtedly need to make changes to your systems or processes to start heading in the right direction. Based on what you've told me before, though, I’m also willing to bet that the foundations of your business, the fundamental ways in which you and your team approach things, could use some shoring up. That's what I'm most interested in and where I can help.

[G]: Alright…

[M]: Le’ me ask you: How do you go about focusing on the quality of how your whole business operates as a system?** 

[G]: I’m not sure what you mean.

[M]: The most successful companies, it seems to me, cover all the bases. They stay on top of and adequately address everything that matters. They improve continually. And they do these things systematically.

[G]: You're talking about Fortune 500 companies?

[M]: Not only. Your company could do the same. I’d like to explore that possibility with you.

[G]: (Half nod in agreement)

[M]: May I show you something I’ve been working on? It’s not finished; there are some things I like about it and some things I don’t…

[G]: What is it?

[M]: I can't decide what to call it: a structural bookwork?*** a movable book? It uses paper engineering and specialty printing techniques. It's meant to be interactive and interesting to look at. For now, it represents the best way I can think of to facilitate the kinds of conversations I want to have with managers.

[G]: Go ahead and lay it on me. We have ten minutes. 

[M]: Cool. Say, do remember those paper fortune teller thingamajigs from when we were kids?

Top: view of the inside of my structural bookwork. Underneath (clockwise from upper left): paper fortune teller, scratch-off game card, pop-up cube (it's rubber band activated!) and wheel chart. Other fun components used but not pictured: magic window shade and circular pages hinged together in unexpected ways.

*based on actual conversations
**borrowed phrase from Chuck Cobb
***To see amazing and inspiring examples of structural bookworks and the like, check out book artist Julie Chen's portfolio at: www.flyingfishpress.com -- or pop-up book master Robert Sabuda's site: www.robertsabuda.com.

That's The Way We Do Things Around Here

In Making It All Work, David Allen makes what I think’s an interesting distinction:

“Because what I teach is actually not a system but a systematic approach, it can be adapted…”

When I first read that (in context) I thought I knew precisely what he meant. Looking at it again, though – Do I really know the difference between a system and an approach? How about a methodology? A formula?

What got me thinking about this was a visit to the SCORE (Service Corps of Retired Executives) Web site. I was following up after something I’d read last year, that Deluxe Corporation, one of the largest check printers in the U.S., was teaming up with SCORE to make its Counseling Methodology available to smaller businesses.

To my mild surprise, I discovered this time around that the words ‘counseling’ and ‘methodology’ have been chopped in favor of ‘mentoring’ and ‘program’. Hmmm. Mentoring Program strikes me as less structured, less prescriptive, less pushy…

I don’t know how much thought or debate went into the name change. But I think it matters, at least to this extent:

If you'd ask a small business owner to describe what her company does day-in and day-out in its efforts to be successful, there’s a good chance she’d end by saying something like, “That, in a nutshell, is the way we do things.” There'd likely be no references to systems, methodologies, etc. In this respect there's a disconnect...between typical small business owners and the mentors (or consultants or coaches or facilitators or advisors) who call on them.

What can be done about it? Well, if you're in that second camp and your mission is to help smaller businesses succeed, you can do 'em a favor by bridging the gap. Be clear about who you are and what you have to offer -- and learn to use their lingo. Down to the last word.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

For kicks, here's how some other thought leaders describe their offerings:

A Mind Map Of Sorts

It seems to me there are a lot of smart management thinkers saying the same thing: the old way of operating and governing businesses is no longer working (most convincingly communicated, in my opinion, by John Seely Brown and his BIG SHIFT team) but there's a promising and overarching new way that is. The questions they're asking and the solutions they're offerering are strikingly similar. 'S'far as I know, though, the smart guys I have in mind are relatively un-connected to one another. Would or could it be beneficial to bring 'em together as a group? That's what I've been wondering these days. Maybe this (below) will shed light on why:

Balancing Act

Where and when does a company get its best results? Les McKeown: in the Predictable Success stage. David Allen: in Captain & Commander mode. Either way, it's all about balancing freedom and order:

Can You Name That Impulse?

Just a quick, note-to-self-like post:

For years, Les McKeown saw what would later become his methodology for bringing sustained, lasting and predictable success to an organization – in his mind’s eye – as a statue:

“I’ve spent a lifetime ‘sculpting’ Predictable Success,” he wrote in his 2010 book of the same name. “My career has been a process of chipping away the confusion, misinformation and presuppositions to uncover the true nature of success hidden beneath.”

Reading about this recently reminded me of Buckminster Fuller’s Tetrascroll.

Tetrascroll tells the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. It was written and illustrated for children, but for Mr. Fuller it also represented “everything I think and feel in mathematics and philosophy and everything else.”

I hestitate to call it (just) a book. The original edition was bound on triangular pages that were hinged on two sides. When closed, the whole thing formed a large equilateral triangle; when opened, it could be unfolded into a circle, a forty-foot strip and more.

A stone statue. A triangular solid.

It seems to me the impulse in both cases to want to communicate by means of an art object had to have come from the same place. I can’t quite put my finger, though, on where that place is. 

Can you?

And what the heck is it about wanting to make complex ideas simple? What roles do permanence, elegance, and even reverence play? Would the guy most people called Bucky back then get any satisfaction from Tweeting today?