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?

Pausing To Remember What Really Matters

(This is a reprise of a Post from December 2010. An idea worth reconsidering today. Happy Thanksgiving, All.)

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 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.

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

A Requiem For Relationships

There is no shortage of information and advice on relationships.  What it takes to make them work, fix them when they’re broken, build them, nurture them, leverage them. Counselors, coaches, philosophers, and theologians, all have devoted volumes to the subject.

Seldom will anyone whisper, let alone proclaim the truth: relationships don’t work.

I know -- the initial reaction is to vehemently deny this, and label the idea as the voice of pessimism, if not sheer heresy. This was certainly the response I clung to when first presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. But consider the evidence for a moment. Pick the arena -- from the closest of personal, to casual or social, to the heart of the professional marketplace -- relationships call for an unselfish perspective.

And how’s that worked for most of us? We are, across the spectrum, most often “in it to win.” The idea of being unselfish seems counter to everything that matters. Oh sure, best intentions define the early stages of the relationships we deem important -- at the personal and business level. But, when in the course of normal events, competing interests surface -- ah, there is the rub!

Of course, some of these “competing” instances are little more than trivial bouts born of (to be charitable) unique perspectives. If the relationship is important enough, at least one party finds a way to defer. But when these interests are seeded in a value system, or -- often more devastating -- a profit margin -- compromise, let alone deference becomes exponentially more difficult.

In these moments, whether with a significant other, a once-valued business partner, or a former key client, the instinct to win...to protect position...to self preserve takes over. And relationships tear. Or break. Or shatter.

Wow! That is gloom and doom...right?

Not so fast. What if a relationship constitutes the ultimate counter-intuitive? What if the foundation for a successful relationship is in knowing that, left to the normal course of things, relationships don’t work?

This, of course, is not a new idea. “For it is in giving that we receive.”

When marketers and strategists tap into this dynamic, the market tends to change. This is, after all, the principle at the heart of all the talk about listening, dialogue, and (we need a new term for this) customer satisfaction. This is not to imply that business relationships or the nurture of personal networks is ever easy, or that there exists a quick fix; but watch what happens when enterprise seeks a way to give something back...even in the smallest of increments.

At the personal level, all I know is that the most cherished relationships I have are the byproducts of forgiveness, charity and immeasurable unselfishness on the part of others. For these, I am most thankful.

And on a day when many celebrate a new beginning, whatever your faith, and however you choose to view the tremendous possibility, I am grateful that the impossible is possible. Relationships can -- indeed, do work.

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”.