Big Hairy Audacious Goals Versus The Devils You Know

Bill Taylor’s HBR Blog post today -- “Don’t Let What You Know Limit What You Imagine” -- strikes at the heart of a strategic planning challenge for professional service organizations in today’s marketplace.  Begin with bright business minds, add expertise and deep experience, blend with volatility, unpredictability and a touch of fear, and you have a recipe that can result in the devils we know defining the way we think, act and communicate.

You know the saying -- Be careful...the devil you know may end up being better than the one you don’t know.

When much is at stake -- not to mention those moments when crisis looms -- the desire to study history, examine the past, and leverage experience is understandable.  The great challenge -- in fact, one of the things that differentiates those who actually inspire, innovate and change the future from would-be leaders -- is balanced perspective.

Case in point — as the father of a soon to be 20-year old daughter, it’s difficult for me not to speak completely out of personal experience when I offer advice on dating.  ”I know exactly how immature boys your age are because I was one!”  Few would dispute that my perspective is rooted in fact.  But the problem (apart from the fact that my target audience has limited interest in this message) is that this one-dimensional perspective does little to facilitate progress.

What does this have to do with organizational thinking, planning and communication?  Simply this: without exception, when couched and “toned” only by data points of the past, an organization’s mindset, planning and message will lack dimension, limit vision, and seed faulty action.

Absent a perspective that allows for (and prompts) vision, communication is either a recitation of history or an account of current conditions. If that data is less than stellar the chances are great that the devils we know have far too much influence.

Consider this: had the framework for Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or poetic Second Inaugural been couched in the reality of recent history, or even the moment, his speeches would simply have decried the nation’s condition, and mourned those yet to die. Instead, Lincoln used the past to give birth to a new vision.

Had Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the throng gathered on the Mall in Washington, D.C. speaking only out of experience, the “I have a dream” refrain would never have passed his lips.

And in the wake of the USSR having won the race to orbit the earth, President Kennedy dared to stir the US with an unthinkable vision — to put a man on the moon.

Take a look at what these examples have in common.

• They do not gloss over or ignore the realities of the past;
• They broaden perspective;
• They speak of possibilities for the future;
• They call for participation.

Put another way — what Lincoln, King and Kennedy did was transcend data, and seed a vision. Some might suggest that known data points and vision represent opposite perspectives — that the former is grounded in fact and the later is right-side-of-the-brain creativity at its best . . . spin at worst. Yet, pivotal moments are often marked by the communication of a leader who, unprepared for the past to define the future, is able to articulate a new view of the horizon.

Pivotal moments — whether in commerce, social enterprise, political endeavors and even personal adventure – come when decision makers understand that most of us are anxious to be done with the devils we have known.  We simply need someone to help us with the vision of what might be.

Most of us are still stirred by a dream -- by the challenge inherent in what Jim Collins called Big Hairy Audacious Goals.

Proposal: A New Language For Progress

One of the many gifts my parents gave me was a deep appreciation and love for music.  All kinds of music really.  My mother, possessing a genius I had no way to appreciate at the time, would let me, Keith, Paul and Phyllis have complete control of the family stereo for our own preferred musical preference -- from The Beatles to the Stones, and beyond.

Well, almost complete control.  She was a huge fan of the weekly WJR (Detroit radio) broadcast of Karl Haas’ program, Adventures in Good Music.  For that hour, she cranked up the volume and filled the entire house with what I now know to have been her seeding the work of the masters in our experience.

And an appreciation for classical music somehow, in spite of every attempt to prevent it, seeped into my consciousness.  Though I can’t speak for my brothers and sister, I suspect they’d say the same thing.

Tonight, as iTunes shuffles my library, an amazing spectrum of styles and artists reach deep into the heart of my being, make me quiet, and send chills through my entire body.  James Taylor, Lady Antebellum, Gershwin, Sting, Handel...all strike a chord.

Each chord resonates in a way that defies description or explanation; but is, inarguably, a part of me.  Thanks to Mom and Dad.

This is the power of music.  And I remember in my youth believing that there is something in music that, given a measure or two, is capable of bridging any language and cultural gap, of creating harmony out of dissonance.

With the (continual) news that those entrusted to govern in the United States are unable to make any progress on not only domestic, but pressing global issues, one wonders whether we might arrange for a closed circuit broadcast the world’s music into boardrooms, legislative chambers and seats of power everywhere.

Just a thught.  How much less could possibly be accomplished?

Five Keys To Better Conversations

To the degree that one life intersects with another – at home, on the job, socially (yes, even via social media) – few things are more central to progress and success than the art of dialogue.

Whether a political agenda, the endeavors of enterprise, social awareness and reform or a family’s pursuits, progress is impossible in the absence of an intentional and consistent focus on better conversations.  Better than what?  Better than those we had last year…last month…yesterday.

There is little value in having the same conversations over and over.  Eventually, no one is listening.  So, here are five ideas – two things to steer clear of, and three proactive steps -- that will instigate better conversations and more productive dialogue.

1) Avoid the devils you know.  These come in all shapes and sizes.  They may be rooted in legitimate analysis or the ghosts of self-awareness.  And though understanding the past is one of the ways to avoid repeating it, conversations (in the context of any relationship) that begin with the issues of past experiments and experiences rarely last long enough to break new ground.  Change – indeed progress – is born of aspirations.  Better conversations focus here.

2) Pass on the blame game.  It’s popular, and everyone plays it.  So much so that, masquerading as analysis, the language of blame (or CYA) is often the default language in any change related dialogue.  Understanding what precipitated difficulties of the past might be instructive (though I’m not convinced of that fact).  But attempts here almost always polarize and stymie.  Affixing blame is a waste of time, and an inhibitor of real conversing.  When it is of consequence, you can bet those who need to already have a sense who is to blame.  Play a different game.

3) Change the discussion.  This is the game we should be about, because it facilitates connection.  Much of the time the reason progress is so slow and minuscule is we’re engaging in the same discussions…over and over.  The same debate.  The same case.  The same retort.  And the same result.  Rather, invest in creativity and innovation.  Want to stand a discussion on its ear?  Drop pre-conceived agendas and seed a new idea.  Where true progress is the objective, new ideas – not agendas or platforms – will fuel a better brand of dialogue.

4) Be about solutions.  Conversations that begin with the problems rarely move past them.  Should you need a case study, witness the current non-dialogue in Washington, D.C.  Solutions, on the other hand, require creative thinking, broad (and deep) perspective, and a measure of courage.  Solutions to real-world-issues – without respect to venue – come laden with responsibility.  Whether on a personal level, in the workplace, or in the most convoluted of socio-political environs, solutions to multi-layered challenges always require on-going dialogue.  Solutions to our greatest challenges cannot be communicated via sound bite.

5) Listen more than you talk.  Ah! Here is the rub.  To the degree that conversation is merely what we tolerate in order to make our point and present our agenda, there is no real dialogue.  Dialogue is about erasing the whiteboard, and beginning anew.  Dialogue invests in intentional listening – without agenda, in search of shared aspirations, because this is where connection occurs.

At the risk of stating the obvious, all of this flies in the face of a communication strategy that says identify your message and stay on point no matter the topic or specific question might be.  Dialogue is hard work.  It is not media or camera-friendly.  Good sound bites are the accidental product of actual communication.

And so enterprise cranks out its marketing-speak; politicians rehearse and reiterate their sound bites; client service groups invent new ways to deflect criticism; we all learn to speak the same language, engage in the same conversations over and over; no one is listening…and dialogue is minimal.

I’m determined to be a part of better conversations.  Not only will the past not define the future, the mistakes of yesterday will not cloud today’s conversations.  If just you and I were to commit, what opportunities might be discovered?

A Little Less Talk -- Please!

I have a friend who argues that the smaller an airline is, the more the flight attendants tend to talk -- before and during the flight.  He suggests this isn’t simply about the size of the operation, but more a reflexion of some variation on an inferiority complex.

If you spend much time flying, you’ve probably seen it.  The greetings, warnings, lists of regulations, and sometimes even general flight narrative begin almost before you’re seated and seem endless.  My friend’s point, only half-tongue-in-cheek, is that the more the operation wrestles with a feeling of inferiority, the more chatter passengers are forced to endure.  “We know all the jargon.  These are real planes...with exits, colorful emergency lights and even refreshments!”

My friend is, to a certain degree, joking of course.  But the principle is applicable in various venues.  Witness the blather spewed from virtually every corner of the United States political arena at the moment.

Another friend, when contemplating the longer-than-the-average-citizen-can-imagine vacation season enjoyed by those who work (presumably for us) on Capital Hill, says “at least for a few weeks we can rest easy.  Freedom is safe from their votes.”

Too bad television cameras and microphones are still accessible -- vacation or not.

Half an ear to the marketplace today makes it clear that few believe it will ever happen; but amid a credit rating downgrade and a 500-point drop on Wall Street, one can’t help wonder what things might look like if those to whom we’ve entrusted the republic lost access to the cameras and microphones.  Unable to posture and ponder the next soundbite, might they focus on their job?

But in that our influence over those we’ve sent to Washington seems minimal, a bit of introspection seems in order.  When will we, as constituents, take responsibility?  When will we let those who work for us know that what they do speaks so loudly we cannot hear (and no longer care) what they say?

When will we finally reject all the noise -- without respect to party or professed ideology, and no matter how eloquent?  When will we acknowledge that each time we vote based solely on soundbites, narrow agendas, and promises that we know cannot be kept, we perpetuate what we are experiencing today?

And, as long as we’re dealing with real questions, when will we get off the couch and engage in the process before it is time to bemoan the broken system?

Isn't it time for something more than talk?  Have we any quiet, wise leaders in our midst?  And would we allow them to lead?

Inspiration, Innovation & Leadership

A few days ago one of my Twitter friends -- Steve Herbert (@steveenjoyslife) -- introcued me to Simon Sinek's presentation titled " How Great Leaders Inspire Action." In this (inspired) video, Sinek explores what he calls the "golden circle" -- in his own words, the world's simplest idea.
The crux of the formula? People don't buy what you do (create, produce, advocate, etc.); they buy why you do it.
Put another way -- people buy the reason you do what you do.
For everyone wanting to market a product or service, inspire a course of action, lead a team, or instigate change, Apple, Dr. Martin Luther King and the Wright brothers are poignant illustrations that what inspires action is not "what", but "why."
Take 19 minutes to watch this video.  You will be encouraged...and inspired to action.

Where Have All The Leaders Gone?

Anecdotal evidence is dangerous. But current events (micro and macro level) beg the question: Just when we need it the most, where has real leadership gone?

Significant global unrest appears perpetual. Economic crisis inhibits dialogue around everything from national initiatives to local education. Infrastructures that facilitate so much of what is deemed essential seem stretched beyond reasonable limits.

Yet, those seated in the centers of power – political, social, private enterprise, all – seem impotent when it comes to effecting positive change.

Where is the brand of leadership that sees beyond its own street, neighborhood or village? Do leaders anywhere possess a world view born of an understanding that, while each community is made up of a multitude of perspectives, the threads of shared aspirations are strong enough to bind us together.

Without respect to your sphere of relationships, influence and operation, if you run into a leader that meets the following criteria you’ll be ahead of the game if you tap into their experience and perspective. If you own or run a company, hire them. This kind of leadership is, at best, a lost art.

Characteristics of a Leader

1. Big Picture Perspective. Whether a Manager, an occupant of the C-Suite, or a representative of “the people,” leadership cultivates and maintains perspective that transcends personal or parochial opinions and experiences. Driving an agenda rooted in narrow interests rarely gives rise to significant and lasting change.

2. Doesn’t Roam the Neighborhood Marking Fire Hydrants. If you’re searching for leadership, run when you encounter someone that invests time staking out territory. This never goes hand-in-hand with collaboration and consensus building.

3. Builds Teams. Leadership understands, whether intuitively or experientially, that winning requires a team. From governments to corporate giants to garage entrepreneurs, the best leaders rally support and leverage resources. They do not operate on (or seek to “mark”) an island. Leaders who do not believe in the greater potential of a team should be relieved of duty. Fire ‘em.

(By the way, the ability to build teams goes hand-in-hand with accepting responsibility -- versus blaming all ills on the shortcomings of someone else.)

4. Possess and Inspire Vision. A verse in Proverbs observes that “where there is no vision, the people perish.” If you wonder whether you are a leader or whether your enterprise has leaders in every area, look for the vision. The absence of vision equates to the absence of leadership. On the other hand, the ability to inspire vision is linked to the ability to identify and tap into shared aspirations.

5. Values Listening and Learning over Hyperbole. Somewhere along the line we began to think of personal charisma and the ability to articulate a message as earmarks of a great leader. We manage to overlook that these characteristics have been shared by some of history’s greatest scam artists. This is not to demean the importance of being able to communicate. Rather, it is to remind us that what we most need in leaders today – the ability to find common ground between multiple diverse experiences, collaborative skills, a visionary perspective – are grounded in understanding. And understanding comes from listening. Have someone masquerading as a leader, but unwilling to collaborate and listen? Fire ‘em.

We select leaders in a number of different ways, depending on the venue. But perhaps one of the reasons leadership seems in short supply in so many circles is that we have forgotten what it looks like. Charisma, titles, access, economic might – none of these, leaders make.

What would you add to this list of characteristics?

What Really Matters?

Some things simply are not important in the scope of things.

Mac or PC? Important to the respective companies, to be sure; but give me either and I’ll get the job done. Number of Twitter followers or Facebook friends? Great possibilities; but not near as important as how you treat those you’re connected to -- online or face-to-face.

Pro sports contract negotiations, college bowl selections -- 90% of what fills an hour of sports talk radio or sports center highlights -- important to the individuals and enterprises they touch, yes. But is the amount of time invested by many of us on such issues just a bit out of proportion?

Red state, blue state, left side of the aisle, right side of the brain -- are the things we invest so much time cussing and discussing -- are these things (or are the conversations we’re having about them) as important as the time we spend on them?

This is not to say that purchasing decisions, the thrill of victory and the body politic don’t warrant attention, or to suggest they have no importance.

But (thankfully) every so often I am reminded that it is more important to be quiet for a moment, and consider what really matters.

Time with friends and family really matters.

Experiencing what happens to human beings when we give of ourselves -- this is important. Nothing will change a community more quickly. I would certainly do better to shift some of my sports or political talk time to efforts here.

What others think of you is rarely as important as what you, deep in your heart, think of yourself.

And simply pausing for a few minutes to consider the very few things that really matter -- this is one of the most important things we can do today.

Why Nothing Changes

Thankfully we've survived the campaign antics of another election season in the U.S. And the news, whether your candidate won or lost, is that not much is likely to change.

So we can relax. Fear mongering notwithstanding, two, four, even six years from now we'll find ourselves a little older, to be sure; but, apart from that, not much will have changed. The issues, challenges and debates of 2016 will be alarmingly similar. (Consider how long we've been debating healthcare in the U.S.)

The truth is whether in ones personal life, as a leader in business, or a player on the political landscape, real change -- not to mention meaningful progress -- is rooted in unselfish perspective.

The trouble is perspective is in short supply; unselfish perspective may be near extinction. And big picture vision has given way to the belief that winning is the only true measure of success.

The void isn't limited to the body politic either. We manage to turn virtually everything into a contest. From discussions with significant others to a town hall meeting examining the health of our communities, dialogue far too often gives way to a debate. And with the combination of self interest and a commitment to victory, we dig in and hold our ground as if engaged in a battle for field position.

Unwilling to give even an inch, we witness -- well, something like a political campaign. No real dialogue. No information. No learning. No compromise. And no progress.

With rare exception, here's what we seem to have forgotten: meaningful change doesn't begin with the articulation of a winning argument or even a winning strategy. It begins when individuals become more concerned with listening than talking, and at least as concerned with understanding as being understood. It begins when winning today -- whether with family, neighbors or colleagues -- is less important than teeing up the dialogue that will enable us to find solutions to tomorrow's challenges.

Because no matter the venue or the issue, lasting change does not come in a day. Or a week. Or even an election season.

When (and Where) Winning Really Is Everything

This post is a few days removed from the event that gave impetus to thinking about the topic, primarily because the musings of my knee-jerk response to the final thirty minutes of the Masters were born of far too much emotion. And, though I’m not certain perspective has been fully regained, here goes.

Journalists, columnists and commentators have already commented at length on the stark juxtaposition of, on one hand, Phil Mickelson locked in a poignant embrace with his bride after winning his second Green Jacket; and on the other hand, Tiger Woods’ comments that many have characterized (correctly in my view) as born of almost no appreciation for the moment – either in terms of his own life, or for the lore of golf’s grandest stage. Agree or disagree, it is impossible to deny the compelling nature of the two stories. I’ll resist the temptation to opine further.

For me (and for some reason I feel compelled to apologize for the personal views I’m about to extol), there is a much more fundamental issue to be addressed: what have we decided constitutes winning?

For a season (no pun intended), while compiling an enviable record on the golf course, Mickelson was referred to as a “choker”, finishing in the top ten in tournament after tournament, but failing to finish first. The inference was that this man – clearly one of the world’s elite golfers – didn’t have the “stuff” to be a real winner.

Choker? Seriously?

And after listening to Tiger Woods’ comments at the conclusion of the Masters – comments that many of us (include me in the group) would once have lauded as representative of his relentless focus and commitment to winning – I wonder how many share my response; I no longer subscribe to, support or care to hear Tiger’s definition of sportsmanship, dedication or Winning. Not because I’m prepared to cast stones; not because I believe he should be held to any particular standard simply because he is gifted and public.

Not for any reason other than I believe it is time I realigned my definition of what it means to Win.

Jumping to another sport, when Duke defeated Butler in the fortieth minute of NCAA’s March Madness, how could anyone think of Butler’s bulldogs as a bunch of losers?

In that spirit, here are five ideas on the subject of winning.

• There is serious merit to the idea that “it isn’t whether you win or lose, but how you play the game" (with apologies to Vince Lombardi)
• Character matters. I’m not prepared to try to define it, except to say that while characters might win contests along the way, when calculating whether one is a Winner, the score is only one part of the formula
• Though it is counter-intuitive, it is worth noting that not winning every single contest does not constitute Losing.
• As cliché as it may sound, sometimes simply playing the game equates to Winning

And maybe most important, I believe it is way past time to remind ourselves that millions of Winners never tee it up. Or set foot on a pitcher’s mound, make Sports Center, have the chance to hoist a championship trophy, or -- for that matter -- sit in a CEO’s chair. They simply embrace each day’s challenges. And parent. And mentor. And give more than they take.

These are the real Winners. With a capital “W”. 

Collaborating? Check Your Winning Attitude at the Door

There are few things we value more than winning.  From t-ball to spelling bees to the professional sports franchise we personally adopt, nothing matches the thrill of finishing on top.  It impacts self-image, the way we relate to those around us, and even commerce.  (Ask the folks in New Orleans about victory’s impact on the economy and psyche of an entire region.)

While it’s tempting to go off on the relative value (or absence, thereof) of a distorted focus on winning when it comes to pre and elementary school ranks, that’s a debate for another day.  For today, as calls for collaboration, compromise and new solutions echo from boardrooms, C-suites and strategy sessions, a compulsion to win may be one of the greatest barriers to progress.

Here’s the question: is collaboration possible when everyone at the table is driven to win?

No matter the venue – political, personal or business -- when winning is the measure of success the interaction resembles more an effort to convert than a commitment to collaborate. When leadership is measured in terms of litmus tests, compromise is difficult.   And in the context of unwavering agendas, real compromise is impossible.

Any of us hoping for compromise, not to mention sincerely wanting to collaborate -- from political leader to C-Suite management – might do well to take a quick look at the definitions of compromise and collaborate.  And then check that drive to win at the door.

The Discipline of Listening vs. The Art of Messaging

Listening doesn't come easy.

For anyone (or any business) with a point of view, an opinion, a measure of conviction, and the means to disseminate a message listening is rarely what first comes to mind when addressing the communication process.

Client feedback initiatives and market research notwithstanding, from the instant an infant realizes what it takes to relieve the pains of hunger, our practical view of communication focuses on creating and delivering a message.  We are conditioned to view charisma, wordsmithing and creative genius as the components of great communication.  Result?  We equate message delivery with communication.

Listening is...well, just silence.  Golden, perhaps.  But certainly not communicating.

(We could spend a couple of paragraphs discussing how this view has worked out thus far, but let's get to the good part.)

Here's the proposition: communication is one of those counter-intuitive disciplines that works exactly opposite of the way we think; it begins when we learn how to listen.

And the discipline of listening is what gives shape to the creative art of messaging.

Discipline and Art are not at odds when it comes to communication; rather, they are two essential halves that create the whole.  For marketing professionals, this gives rise to a two-fold go-forward challenge:

• Beef up the portfolio of proactive listening tools (Social Media affords great possibilities here); and,
• Practice resisting the temptation to go straight to messaging.

Thoughts?

Client Experience Will Always Speak Louder Than Any Marketing Message

A friend of mine who is fond of tweaking me at every opportunity used to frequently chirp, "I'm sorry Eric. What you do speaks so loud, I can't hear what you say." The older I become, the more I believe that this strikes at the heart of one of the half-dozen greatest challenges we face.

Overstatement? Consider a relationship with a significant other. Or how about in the context of parenting. It seems to me that in life's most critical relationships, the degree to which deeds and words are consistent is in direct correlation to the respect afforded.

To put it in marketing terms, this is the challenge for every brand -- personal or corporate: for proclaimations to square with the reality of experience. The result of a relatively frequent lack of alignment between message and experience is the deterioration of respect. And the bad news here is that this lack of respect can result in a new "brand promise" of unreliable, inconsistent, hypocritical. (Needless to say, this is a brand not easily changed.)

In today's professional services marketplace, where client service, customer satisfaction and loyalty programs occupy a position of prominence (rightfully so) in marketing strategies and messaging, it seems to me the challenge is magnified. In this environment, with relationshps so central to effective marketing, brand promises tend to be personal and tangible. Clients expect that marketing proclaimations and their own experience will be aligned. Misalignment (nevermind, dissonance) in today's "new normal" will be met with brand dismissal: what you do simply carries much more weight than what you say.

(And yet again I am reminded that equity building in relationships -- whether personal or in the context of marekting -- is based on a handful of the same undeniable principles.) 

Is The Devil We Know Defining Our Message?

When it comes to communication that is critical to the future, it’s easy to let the negatives we know (and probably understand very well) completely determine the framework of important messages.

Case in point — when talking to my teenage daughter about dating, it’s difficult for me not to speak completely out of personal experience, framing the message in the context of the “devil” I know – ”I know exactly what boys have on their minds because I was one!” Few would dispute that my perspective is rooted in fact; there is no shortage of data points to support the message. But the problem (apart from the fact that my target audience has no interest in hearing this message) is that this one-dimensional message does little to help my daughter develop a perspective that helps her move into the future.

But enough painful confession. What does this have to do with our communication as leaders? Simply this: without exception, when communication is couched and “toned” only by data points of the past -- or for that matter, the present -- it will lack dimension, skew perspective, and seed a faulty response.


Absent a perspective that allows for (and prompts) vision, communication is either a recitation of history or an account of current conditions. If that data is less than stellar (consider how we communicate with our organizations in the context of recession), the chances are great that the devils we know have far too much influence on the message -- even when the message is future-looking.


Consider this: had the framework for Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or poetic Second Inaugural been couched in the reality of the moment, his speeches would simply have decried the nation’s condition, and mourned those yet to die. Instead, Lincoln used the past only to raise the specter of a new vision.


Had Martin Luther King, Jr. addressed the throng speaking only out of experience, the “I have a dream” refrain would never have passed his lips.


And in the wake of the USSR having won the race to orbit the earth, JFK dared to stir the US with an unthinkable vision — to put a man on the moon.


Take a look at what these examples have in common.

• They do not gloss over or ignore the realities of the past;
• They broaden perspective;
• They speak of possibilities for the future;
• They call for participation.

Put another way — what Lincoln, King and Kennedy did was seed a vision. Some might suggest that known data points and vision represent opposite perspectives — that the former is grounded in fact and the later is right-side-of-the-brain creativity at its best . . . spin at worst. Yet, modern history’s pivotal moments are often marked by the communication of a leader who, unprepared for the past to define the future, was able to articulate a new view of the horizon.


Pivotal moments — whether in commerce, social enterprise or political endeavors – come when leaders understand that most of us are anxious to be done with the devils we have known. We simply need someone to help us with the vision of what might be.


As we work on marketing plans, budgets and staff assignments for 2010, we'll do well to temper what we know about the last year (and projections regarding coming months), and mix in the stuff of vision, dreams and audacious goals.

Win or Lose on Your Own Terms -- A Guest Blog

For more than twenty years Allen Fuqua has led marketing organizations and efforts in industries in the midst of high-consequence change, including healthcare, professional service consulting and most recently as a CMO in the legal industry. He is not only a colleague, but a friend; and - as the saying goes - most of what I learned about marketing, I learned from Allen. I'm pleased to welcome him as a Guest to this space, and encourage you to follow his musings on Twitter (@A_Fuqua). -- Eric Fletcher

As servants of an organization and the leadership of that organization, we often find ourselves within a reactive mode of management and execution. Short periods of that are understandable, but overtime the value we provide is eroded and our personal energy often diminishes dramatically.

So each of us must take a careful look at our own organization and make some decisions and accept some arithemetic. What are its strengths/weaknesses, our own personal capabilities, our role, the organization's expectations and our relationships within the organization? From that information and in order to be professionally authentic, you have to make two decisions:

1. You have to choose what (strategy, targets, relationships, etc) is most important and focus your best self there.

2. With apologies to Gene Krantz, failure is an option in business and usually not a career ender. (In fact, most of us have needed failure to learn great lessons and go on to better things.) There's always a chance things will explode and you will lose. You have to choose on what basis you can be fine with losing. This decision will allow you to focus your energies more efficiently and not act/react like a spineless functionary.

Let me give you some of mine:

1. What is most important:

• Growing my firm's Industry Group and Client Team revenue (note: this is separate from our Practice Groups and is consistent with our firm strategy.)
• Supporting my team: individually and collectively. I'm responsible for helping them grow professionally and being a success.
• Provide ideas, solutions and execution which further our firm's leadership's plan.
• We don't do any project, RFP, idea, event, etc without preapproved funding and an attorney champion on each. Even if we think it’s the right thing to do. (My work must be subject to the interest, will and approval of my shareholders. If that's not enough for me, I cease being a servant of the organization.)

2. On what basis am I comfortable losing:

• I can't please everyone. So I respond the best I can to the above priorities knowing it won't satisfy some people.
• They decide they don't like me or I'm not a good fit. If true, this would be for the best.
• I didn't play the politics correctly. I play the politics based on the priorities above. If that doesn't work, we let the chips fall.

Nothing sacred or holy about this list; just a place to stand and operate from. Make yours make sense for who you are and where your organization is.