WB's Way: The 78th Most Common Word

From ‘70s and ‘80s pop music:

Ooh, baby I love your way [Peter Frampton]

That’s just the way it is [Bruce Hornsby]

You can go your own way [Fleetwood Mac]

That’s the way of the world [Earth, Wind & Fire]

I don’t think I could’ve guessed that the word “way” is one of the most common written words in the English language. Now that I know it is, though, I’ll pay even closer attention.

Way originally meant “road, path, or course of travel.” A definition that interests me more, however, is: “a manner, method, or means” – as in a way of doing or of knowing. As in there are as many different ways of being as there are humans.

I’ve actually been paying some attention to its use for a while. This blog (as an indication) is all about various ways of managing. Every manager has her way. The Harvard Business School teaches its comprehensive way. Tom Peters recently summed up and tweeted about his way this way: 

"Cherish your people, cuddle your customers, wander around, 'try it' beats 'talk about it,' pursue excellence, tell the truth."

I haven’t thought this through, but – an exposition of Wendell Berry's way would almost certainly include and revolve around these notions: 

• we (people) have to act; 
• we have to act on the basis of what we know; 
• what we know is incomplete; 
• therefore, “the question of how to act in ignorance is paramount.” 

The Way of Ignorance. That’s the title of a 2005 collection of his essays. It's also a name I think he’d still happily give to his general approach to things. How do his thoughts (more specifically) about business follow from it? That’s what I hope to keep exploring and writing about...

A ways down the road.

WB's Way: Intro

I’ve never really bought into the idea that graduates of MBA programs know better ‘an the rest of us what makes companies tick. Peter Drucker was a sociologist. Kenneth Andrews, who (among other things) headed up Harvard Business School’s advanced management programs in the '70s, earned a PhD in English.

Walter Kiechel wrote about both men in The Lords of Strategy, lauding them for the power of their insights and their contributions to The Secret Intellectual History of the New Corporate World. (the book’s subtitle) He described Andrews as “a humanist in all that word’s senses.” And, he noted about Drucker that his “output was so rich, wide-ranging, and ever-renewed with fresh observations that it somehow didn’t come across as systematic.”

Rereading those snippets the other day, I couldn’t help but think of Wendell Berry. 

Wendell Berry.“The best serious essayist at work in the United States.” The recipient, this past March, of the 2010 National Humanites Medal. A swell guy, in my eyes, whose values, opinions, and sensibilities have intrigued me for at least a dozen years.

During their careers, Messrs. Drucker and Andrews were up to their respective elbows in big business. As for Mr. Berry? The word “business” hardly ever surfaces in his writings. And yet he has loads to say about: Work. Economy. Community. Propriety…

The human condition. That’s been his domain. Within it, he's developed interesting points of view that (IMO) speak to the role of people in getting things done and making things better. He's examined all sorts of stuff business thinkers haven’t traditionally shown much willingness to examine – but managers with responsibility for the overall success of their organizations must necessarily address.

I have a vague feel for Wendell Berry’s formula (which has ne’er been formulated, as far as I know) for success. I have a sense I’d enjoy working alongside him. But, I’m not positive. So I want to get a firmer grip; I want to make his approach more explicit, if possible. And then kick it around some.

Ultimately, I’d like to end up with a more informed opinion about whether or not more Wendell Berry in business would be good for business.

Any business.

Coming Soon...

Simply Illuminating, 1.04

[Part 4 of a short series]

Is this it? The illuminated business bible I’ve been looking for? The answer to all my (maybe I shouldn’t use this word) prayers? 

Well, let’s dig into the hardback edition of Tom Peters’ 2003 Re-imagine! and see. Evaluate it first for its manuscript qualities, then for its bible qualities.

MIND’S EYE FOR DESIGN 

I think it’d be mighty thought provoking to take a hard-cover, mint-condition copy of Re-imagine! and place it next to one of the world’s most magnificent illuminated manuscripts (are you familiar with the Book of Kells? I’ll attach a pic at the end) and just compare the two. Every which way. Looking for patterns. Noting what’s different…

Would you find similarities? 

Yes. 

Significant ones, I’d contend.

You’ll have to use your imagination for this, but – let’s first consider the key design components:

A typical two-page spread from Re-imagine! 

1. TEXT. Not the fancy hand lettering you'd find in a manuscript, but the typography in Re-imagine! is comparably readable, modern, and appropriate for the material. 
2. BORDERS. I liken some of the graphics, illustrations, and photos that surround Re-imagine!'s main body text to the decorated borders of illuminated manuscripts. They’re not really there to challenge the reader to “think visually”. They're more for ornamentation. 
3. HISTORIATED INITIALS. Found in illuminated manuscripts at the beginning of new or particularly noteworthy sections of text. Re-imagine! doesn't use enlarged or decorated initial letters, but it does makes extensive use of varying word sizes, colors, and cases (upper and lower) to give clues as to their relative importance. This, by the way, is the lone design element Peters carried over – even to the title – into his The Little BIG Things, published in 2010.* 
4. RECURRING ELEMENTS. The Saint John’s Bible, another exemplary illuminated manuscript, uses common art-elements both within and across its seven volumes. Similarly, Re-imagine! uses page headers, sidebar icons, and color-coded chapter identifiers (which are a challenge-and-a-half for press operators to print) to help give its author’s ramblings a more consistent form. 
5. COLOR. Re-imagine! uses bold, in-your-face color from beginning to end. Says Peters,  “These are Technicolor Times. Thence...they demand Technicolor Words and Technicolor Ideas and Technicolor Actions.” Color brings the images on the pages of illuminated manuscripts to life and captivates readers. So, too, does the r-e-a-l gold or silver they employ. The cover of Re-imagine! was printed with f-a-k-e silver ink. 
6. MINATURE ILLUSTRATIONS / ILLUMINATIONS. One of the defining features of an illuminated manuscript is its painted illustrations. You could say Re-imagine! is loaded with modern day illuminations that’ve been integrated with the main text. I also put the book's sidebars in this category. They're there to "flesh out" the main text, i.e., to shed light. 

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

There. Does this one-to-one matching o’ design elements have you convinced?

I’d say while no one’s likely to mistake Re-imagine! for an illuminated manuscript, there are enough on-the-surface similarities that just about anyone could be made to recognize the common threads. What’s more, I’m willing to put out there with some confidence: illuminated manuscripts are to Re-imagine! as plain old, non-illuminated manuscripts are to most other business books out there today. 

NOW – 

Do I like what I see of Re-imagine!’s surface? Does it “stack up” to something like the Book of Kells in terms of the beauty of its design? 

Those are trickier questions to answer. How do I go about isolating my design-only thoughts, after all, from the other thoughts that enter my consciousness as I flip pages? (Do I like what’s being said? Is this well written? Do I trust the author? How are my interest and energy levels?)

Well, I could conceivably base my evaluation around the six design-component categories above. Or I could just make a sweeping generalization like this: 

Re-imagine! reminds me of a design-heavy college textbook, circa this past decade. The kind used in an Intro-To-Some-Subject-Intended-For-Non-Majors-Of-That-Subject. (I’d bet there are Business 101 books, for example, with a similar look.) It’s livelier and punchier than the majority o’ those, though. Full of attention grabbers. Think fairly hip textbook meets WIRED magazine. 

I can’t say I’m blown away by the design. But I do like it. And I think the team that did it deserves credit: (1.) for breaking with the tradition of biz books designed in the non-illuminated manuscript (no pics, no color) mold, and (2.) for the effort. Why for the effort? ‘Cause I’m sure they worked their tails off. A typical book relies on a template of some sort. By contrast, almost every spread of Re-imagine! is unique. Must’ve been like designing a magazine with 352 numbered pages. 

MUSTN’T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER

The slick packaging helped draw me in. It even called my favorite illuminated manuscripts to mind. Two illuminated (capital 'B') Bibles, in particular. Along with 'em? All kinds of deeper questions about the book's messaging. Its content. And my perceptions of its usefulness and meaning.

This Peters guy – who some have called a prophet – has sunk a lot of resources into making Re-imagine! visually appealing. Might he have something important to say? Something really important?

I’ve used the phrase “business bible” in this and previous posts. Playing the religious analogy for all it's worth, Is Re-imagine! worthy of serious consideration and study the way the Bible is for some folks? Is it worth returning to again and again (every Sunday night, perhaps) for guidance? Should its thinking-and-acting-instructions-for-managers be followed religiously? Ultimately, I wanna to know if I should place my faith in the darn thing above and beyond the other business books out there. What’s the point, otherwise? 

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

I’m searching for answers…......If business success could only be made to be predictable…......I’ve been let down in the past…......

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

Will Re-imagine! one day be re-membered and re-ferred to, simply, as the Book of Tom? 

I’m going to leave that for a subsequent post. 

Here's a famous page from the Book of Kells: 

*I first saw this technique used by William Gass in Willie Masters' Lonesome Wife, an experimental novella published in 1968. 

Simply Illuminating, 1.03

[Part 3 of a short series]

I can think of two (2) representations of  “comprehensive management approaches” – two exceptional representations – that remind me of my favorite illuminated manuscripts. In this post I’ll describe and discuss one of ‘em, a poster-sized map published about a year-and-a-half ago. I hope to do the same with regard to an entire (2003) book in a future post.

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

In Simply Illuminating, 1.01, I used as an example of a beautiful illuminated manuscript the Saint John’s Bible [SJB]. The first thing I want to do here is lay some groundwork by shining a light on some of its componentry.

The SJB is a seven-volume (still unfinished) work, conceived and powered by a Welsh calligrapher named Donald Jackson and a group of Benedictine monks in Minnesota. Their shared vision for the past fifteen-plus years has been to create a magnificent Bible that would capture the beauty and tradition of centuries of liturgy and carry it into the future. Saint John’s Abbey and University has funded the project to the tune, according to Wikipedia, of $4 million.

The message of The SJB is, of course, God’s word, God’s way. The grand story of salvation. To faithfully and beautifully represent it...requires earthly intermediaries – upfront, for example, to reflect on each of the volumes before they’re created. At Saint John’s University, a committee of artists, medievalists, theologians, biblical scholars and art historians known as the Committee on Illumination and Text decides what to emphasize, how to represent the divine, etc. Its guidelines (known as illumination schema) are next passed to Mr. Jackson’s production team which uses a mixture of techniques and materials – handwriting with quills on calf-skin vellum, gold and platinum leaf and hand-ground pigments, Chinese stick ink, modern technology – to craft the final volumes. (each of which measures 2’ x 3’ [opened] and weighs approximately thirty-five pounds)

I’ve only seen pictures, to this point, of what’s finished. (The Web site is fantastic; you can explore each volume in depth there if you follow this link: http://www.saintjohnsbible.org/see.) Someday I’d like to "experience" the entire SJB in person.

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

Okay. So now we have some elements against which we can directly compare -- drumroll please -- the GTD Workflow Map [WM] I alluded to at the outset.

You’ve got to be pretty bold to proclaim that a methodology you’ve devised (a personal management methodology which can also be extended to whole companies) “should be the way we all approach the game of work and the business of life.” David Allen is indeed bold. And passionate. The WM is his baby. About his intentions surrounding the production, he’s quoted as saying:

I spent more than two years crafting and fine-tuning the map, ensuring that it would thoroughly and accurately describe the essential elements of time- and self-management. It's as simple as I could get it, while still embodying the subtleties and complexities that have to be factored in to make it real and useful. And the visual representation we've come up with I think is a highly effective way to make something this meaningful really clear.

The Getting Things Done methodology is itself a (secular) formula for zeroing in on success. As messages go, there’s quite a bit to it. How'd Mr. Allen go about distilling it down to just one arresting graphic? I’m speculating here, but, based on the quote above and knowing he’s a “visual thinker” from way back* it wouldn’t surprise me a lick to learn that he did much of the napkin sketching (preliminary designing) himself. But, for the finished art?

There are companies out there that specialize in information design and infographics. An opportunity like this would be right up their alley. Funnel Inc. (Middleton, WI) is one. And so’s the company he went with...

XPLANE (headquartered in Portland, OR) strikes me as the perfect partner for the project. Like the David Allen Co., it’s results focused. It has an action -- maybe even an activist -- orientation in that it believes passionately in the power of graphics, done well, to motivate. (As in, “We can help trigger the kinds of intellectual and emotional responses that'll lead to individual behavior changes…that'll lead to organizational changes…that'll lead to improved results.") (my take) To perform its magic, the company employs something like its own Committee on Illumination and Text: a team of experts from a range of disciplines including management consulting, information design, process improvement, journalism, social media research and interaction design.

I don't know exactly what value that bunch ended up adding in this particular case. No matter, though. The collaboration succeeded; I think the poster's a winner. By far the nicest pictorial revelation to date of the GTD way:

You'll notice there's no gold leafing. There's no ornamentation for ornamentation's sake. But -- for the team approach, for the thoughtful integration of text and graphics, for the fact that XPLANE + D.A. have created a new art form that complements his writings -- wouldn't you agree it's in the tradition of the illuminated manuscript?

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

And, do you like it? The poster's a far cry from the way most management approaches have been (or are) communicated. For David Allen, was commissioning it worth it?

*There were earlier, flow-chart-style iterations of his Workflow Diagram. He also did an intricate drawing, circa 1990, of what he wanted his ideal life and lifestyle to look like (which you can find in his latest book, Making It All Work.)

Simply Illuminating, 1.02

[Part 2 of a short series]

A smattering of diagrams. A few abstract representations. That’s the normal extent of the artwork in the business bibles I read -- much of which, in my opinion, is mediocre: as if tacked on at the last minute; not well-integrated with the text (like the best illuminations of old); not effective in its own right.

Why’s this the case? Why do some business communicators place more emphasis than others on telling their tales with pictures? How is the relative success of their methodologies impacted by their art choices?

Don’t know. Don’t know. Don’t know.

Won’t know, either, ‘til I start asking questions.

And bringing up a few examples.

THE BAD

I don’t want to dwell on the bad, but I would like to start with (and then summarily dismiss) an example. The diagram directly below was used in a just-published book I just read. The main message therein? It’s a leader’s job to align his or her company’s strategy, organization, and people:

Had a chance to drink it in? If so, need I say why it added next to nothing in terms of my comprehension or appreciation of the authors’ theme? Why it detracted from my reading experience? Seeing the thing made me want to revisit…

THE GOOD

The good ol’ growth-share matrix. Probably the most important conceptual tool of the earliest stage (between 1960 and 1980) of the so-called strategy revolution. Walter Kiechel III wrote appreciatively about it in his 2010 book The Lords of Strategy:

Admire for a moment, the beauty of the thing. In a single graphic and conceptual device, the Boston Consulting Group had managed to pull together all the elements it thought essential to strategy, including the three C’s. [costs, competition, customers]

I can relate. Here was a simple, balanced, four-box structure -- “festooned with witty symbols” – that captured and integrated several complex concepts that BCG had taken years to develop. It was easy to understand. And powerful. It could both track and predict industry change, and thus offered guidelines for how businesses were to be managed. Here ‘t’is:

THE BETTER

Another diagram I especially like is this one below, devised last year by Haviland Studio (Palo Alto, CA and Lahaina, HI) and used by John Hagel, et. al. in The Power of Pull. It’s essentially a roadmap of the authors’ “new approach to value creation.” Take a gander:

By my count, it incorporates at least eleven (11) major factors, or themes, covered in the book. It strikes me as: original; imaginative; harmonious; balanced; thoughtfully constructed. The sizes and shapes and relative positions of the various elements all have meaning, i.e., they’re well-matched to the concepts they represent. (The overall shape and directionality of the arrow, for example, reflects the exponential nature of what the authors call an “increasing-returns collaboration curve.” ) All for the better.

(NOT) THE END

If I had to rate the topmost diagram on an imaginary scale from one to ten, with one = “ugly” and ten = “beautiful”, I’d give it a two or three. I think it does have some redeeming qualities. (The scales we use for judging diagrams are less like old-fashioned phone lines with single metal wires – and more like bundles o’ fiber optic strands; objects can strike us as beautiful in some ways, but not in others.) By the same token, however, the two diagrams beneath it each have their own shortcomings:

• GROWTH-SHARE: If beauty is truth, as the poet Keats said, then you could make a case that the g-s matrix and the logic behind it -- which came to be attacked as simplistic, even dangerous (i.e., untrue) -- became less beautiful over time. From a strictly artistic standpoint, it's also not something you're likely to see in a gallery. Even in an intro to design course it wouldn't get high marks.
• PULL: Like it a lot but I have some doubts about its utility as a teaching tool (it hasn't furthered my understanding of the authors' approach) or as a guide for going forward (it's not something to which you’d refer before making decisions). It strikes me more as an impressive feat (as in, How in the world did they engineer all o' those concepts into a single diagram?) than an impressive communication tool intended to make a real-world difference.

The quest goes on. 

What have you seen out there? I’d welcome hearing about particular diagrams that've made lasting impressions. One way or the other.

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!