Shipulski On Design

Archive for the ‘Seeing Things As They Are’ Category

If you got what you wanted, what would you do?

Would you be happy or would you want something else?

Wanting doesn’t have a half-life.  Regardless of how much we have, wanting is always right there with us lurking in the background.

Getting what you want has a half-life. After you get what you want, your happiness decays until what you just got becomes what you always had.  I think they call that hedonistic adaptation.

When you have what you always had, you have two options.  You can want more or you can want what you have.  Which will you choose?

When you get what you want, you become afraid to lose what you got.  There’s no free lunch with getting what you want.

When you want more, I can manipulate you. I wouldn’t do that, but I could.

When you want more your mind lives in the future where it tries to get what you want.  And lives in the past where it mourns what you did not get or lost.

It’s easier to live in the present moment when you want what you have. There’s no need to craft a plan to get more and no need to lament what you didn’t have.

You can tell when a person wants what they have.  They are kind because there’s no need to be otherwise.  They are calm because things are good.  And they are themselves because they don’t need anything from anyone.

Wanting what you have is straightforward.  Whatever you have, you decide that’s what you want. It’s much different than having what you want.  Once you have what you want hedonistic adaptation makes you want more, and then it’s time to jump back on the hamster wheel.

Wanting what you have is freeing.  Why not choose to be free and choose to want what you have?

Image credit — Steven Guzzardi

When in doubt, put it out there.  Easy to say, difficult to do.

Why not give it a go?  What’s in the way? A better question: Who is in the way?  I bet that who is you.

I’ve heard the fear of failure blocks people from running full tilt into new territory. Maybe.  But I think the fear of success is the likely culprit.

If you go like hell and it doesn’t work, the consequences of failure are clear, immediate, and short-lived.  It’s like skinning your knee.  Everyone knows you went down hard and it hurts in the moment. And two days after the Band-Aid, you’re better.

If you run into the fire and succeed, the consequences are unknown, and there’s no telling when those consequences will find you. Will you be seen as an imposter? Will soar to new heights only to fail catastrophically and publicly?  Will the hammer drop after this success or the next one? There’s uncertainty at every turn and our internal systems don’t like that.

Whether it’s the fear of success or failure, I think the root cause is the same: our aversion to being judged by others. We tell ourselves stories about what people will think about us if we fail and if we succeed.  In both cases, our internal stories scratch at our self-image and make our souls bleed.  And all this before any failure or success.

I think it’s impossible to stop altogether our inner stories. But, I think it is possible to change our response to our inner stories. You can’t stop someone from calling you a dog.  But when they call a dog, you can turn around and look to see if you have a tail. And if you don’t have a tail, you can tell yourself objectively you’re not a dog.  And I think that’s a good way to dismiss our internal stories.

The next time you have an opportunity put yourself out there, listen to the stories you tell yourself. Acknowledge they’re real and acknowledge they’re not true.  They may call you a dog, but you have no tail. So, no, you’re not a dog.

You may fail or you may fail.  But the only way to find out is to put yourself out there.  Whether you fail or succeed, you don’t have a tail and you’re not a dog. So you might as well put yourself out there.

Image credit — Tambako the Jaguar

Even when there is significant disagreement, there is not 100% disagreement.

Can both sides agree breathing is good for our health?  I think so. And if so, there is less than 100% disagreement.  Now that we know agreement is possible, might we stand together on this small agreement platform and build on it?

Can both sides agree all people are important?  Maybe not.  But what if we break it down into smaller chunks?  Can we agree family is important?  Maybe.  Can we agree my family is important to me and your family is important to you?  I think so.  Now that we have some agreement, won’t other discussions be easier?

Can we agree we want the best for our families?  I think so. And even though we don’t agree on what’s best for our families, we still agree we want the best for them.  What if we focused on our agreement at the expense of our disagreement? Down the road, might this make it easier to talk to each other about what we want for our families?  Wouldn’t we see each other differently?

But might we agree on some things we want for our families?  Do both sides agree we want our families to be healthy? Do we agree we want them to be happy? Do we agree we want them to be well-fed? Do we want them to be warm and dry when the weather isn’t?  With all this agreement, might we be on the same side, at least in this space?

But what about our country?  Is there 100% disagreement here? I think not. Do we agree we want to be safe? Do we agree we want the people we care about to be safe? Do we agree we want good roads? Good bridges? Do we agree we want to earn a good living and provide for our families? It seems to me we agree on some important things about our country. And I think if we acknowledge our agreement, we can build on it.

I think there’s no such thing as 100% disagreement.  I think you and I agree on far more things than we realize.  When we meet, I will look for small nuggets of agreement.  And when I find one, I will acknowledge our agreement.  And I hope you will feel understood.  And I hope that helps us grow our agreement into a friendship built on mutual respect.  And I hope we can teach our friends to seek agreement and build on it.

I think this could be helpful for all of us.  Do you agree?

Image credit — Orin Zebest

You know the space is new when you don’t have the right words to describe the phenomenon.

When there are two opposite sequences of events and you think both are right, you know the space is new.

You know you’re thinking about new things when the harder you try to figure it out the less you know.

You know the space is outside your experience but within your knowledge when you know what to do but you don’t know why.

When you can see the concept in your head but can’t drag it to the whiteboard, you’re swimming in new soup.

When you come back from a walk with a solution to a problem you haven’t yet met, you’re circling new space.

And it’s the same when know what should be but it isn’t – circling new space.

When your old tricks are irrelevant, you’re digging in a new sandbox.

When you come up with a new trick but the audience doesn’t care – new space.

When you know how an experiment will turn out and it turns out you ran an irrational experiment – new space.

When everyone disagrees, the disagreement is a surrogate for the new space.

It’s vital to recognize when you’re swimming in a new space.  There is design freedom, new solutions to new problems, growth potential, learning, and excitement.  There’s acknowledgment that the old ways won’t cut it.  There’s permission to try.

And it’s vital to recognize when you’re squatting in an old space because there’s an acknowledgment that the old ways haven’t cut it.  And there’s permission to wander toward a new space.

Image credit — Tambaco The Jaguar

At the start, it’s impossible to know the right thing to do, other than the right thing is to start.

If you think you should have started, but have not, the only thing in the way is you.

If you want to start, get out of your own way, and start.

And even if you’re not in the way, there’s no harm in declaring you ARE in the way and starting.

If you’re afraid, be afraid. And start.

If you’re not afraid, don’t be afraid.  And start.

If you can’t choose among the options, all options are equally good.  Choose one, and start.

If you’re worried the first thing won’t work, stop worrying, start starting, and find out.

Before starting, you don’t have to know the second thing to do.  You only have to choose the first thing to do.

The first thing you do will not be perfect, but that’s the only path to the second thing that’s a little less not perfect.

The second thing is defined by the outcome of the first. Start the first to inform the second.

If you don’t have the bandwidth to start a good project, stop a bad one.  Then, start.

If you stop more you can start more.

Starting small is a great way to start.  And if you can’t do that, start smaller.

If you don’t start, you can never finish. That’s why starting is so important.

In the end, starting starts with starting.  This is The Way.

Image credit — Claudio Marinangeli

When things don’t go as planned, recognize the Universe doesn’t care about your plan.

When the going gets tough, the Universe is telling you something.  You just don’t know what it’s telling you.

When in doubt, do the next right thing.  That’s how the Universe rolls.

If you don’t like how it’s going, change your situation or change your expectations. Those are the two options sanctioned by the Universe.

If something bad happens, don’t take it personally. The Universe doesn’t know your name.

If you catch yourself taking your plan seriously, don’t. The Universe frowns on seriousness.

Don’t spend time creating a grand plan.  The Universe isn’t big on grand plans.

If your plan requires the tide to stay away, make a different one. The Universe never forgets to tell the tide to come in.

If you find yourself chasing the Idealized Future State, stop.  The Universe has disdain for the ideal.

If something good happens, don’t take it personally. The Universe doesn’t know your name.

When you don’t know the answer, that’s the Universe telling you you may be onto something.

When you have all the right answers, that’s the Universe telling you you’re not asking the right questions.

Image credit — Giuseppe Donatiello

For right frustration to emerge, you need an accurate understanding of how things are, a desire for them to be different, and a recognition you can’t remedy the situation.

The emergence of your desire for things to be different starts with knowing how things are.  And to see things as they are, you’ve got to be in the right condition – well-rested, unstressed, and sitting in the present moment. When you’re tired, stressed, or sitting in the past or future you can’t pay attention.  And when you don’t pay attention, you miss details or context and see something that isn’t.  Or, if you’re tired or stressed you can have clear eyes and a muddy interpretation. Either way, you’re off to a bad start because your desire for things to be different is wrongly informed. Sure, your misunderstanding can lead to a desire for things to be different, but your desire is founded on the wrong understanding.  If you want your frustration to be right frustration, seeing things as they are is the foundational step.  But it’s not yet a desire for things to be different.

Your desire for things to be different is a subtraction of sorts – when how things are minus how you want them to be equals something other than zero. (See Eq. 1)  Your brain-body uses that delta to create a desire for things to be different.  If how things are is equal to how you want them to be, the difference is zero (no delta) and there is no forcing function for your desire.  In that way, if you always want things to be as they are, there can be no desire for difference and frustration cannot emerge.  But frustration can emerge if you know how you want things to be and you recognize they’re not that way.

Eq. 1   Forcing Function for Desire (FFD) = (how things are) – (how you want them to be)

There is a more complete variant of the above equation where FFD is non-zero (there’s a difference between how things are and how you want them) yet frustration cannot emerge.  It’s called the “I don’t care enough” variant. (See Eq. 2) With this variant, you recognize how things are, you know how you want them to be, but you don’t care enough to be frustrated.

Eq. 2  FFD = [(how things are) – (how you want them to be)] * (Care Factor)

When you don’t care, your Care Factor (CF) = 0.  And when the non-zero delta is multiplied by a CF of zero, FFD is zero.  This means there is no forcing function for desire and frustration cannot emerge.  But this is not a good place to be.  Sure, frustration cannot emerge, but when you don’t care there is no forcing function for change.  Yes, you see things aren’t as you want, but you go along for the ride and don’t do anything about it.  I think that’s sad.  And I think that’s bad for business.  I’d rather have frustration.

Eq. 2 can be used by Human Resources as an Occom’s Razor of sorts.  If someone is frustrated, their CF is non-zero and they care.

Now the third factor required for frustration to emerge – a recognition you can’t do anything about the mismatch between how things are and how you want them. If you don’t recognize you can’t do anything to equalize how things are and how you want them, there can be no frustration.  Think – ignorance is bliss.  If you think you can do something to make how things are the same as how you want them, there is no frustration.  Because it’s important to you (CF is non-zero), you will devote energy to bringing the two sides together and there will be no frustration.  But when there’s a mismatch between how things are and how you want them, you care about making that mismatch go away, and you recognize you can’t do anything to eliminate the mismatch, frustration emerges.

What does all this say about people who display frustration? Do you want people that know how to see things as they are?  Do you want people who can imagine how things can be different?  Do you want people who understand the difference between what they can change and what they cannot? Do you want people who care enough to be frustrated?

Image credit — Atilla Kefeli

Tell me what you want done, but don’t tell me how. You’ve got to leave something for me.

Better yet, ask me to help you with a problem and let me solve it.  I prefer asking over telling.

Better still, explain the situation and ask me what I think.  We can then discuss why I see it the way I do and we can create an approach.

Even better, ask me to assess the situation and create a proposal.

Better still, ask me to assess the situation, create a project plan, and run the project.

If you come up with a solution but no definition of the problem, I will ask you to define the problem.

If you come up with a solution and a definition of the problem, I will ask you to explain why it’s the right solution.

If you come up with a problem, a solution, and an analysis that justifies the solution, I will ask why you need me.

If you know what you want to do, don’t withhold information and make me guess.

If you know what you want to do, ask me to help and I will help you with your plan.

If you know what you want to do and want to improve your plan, ask me how to make your plan better.

If you want your plan to become our plan, bring me in from the start and ask me what I think we should do.

Image credit — x1klima

Demoing something for the first time is difficult, but doing it for the second time is easy.  And when you demo a new solution the first time, it (and you) will be misunderstood.

What is the value of this new thing?  This is a good question because it makes clear they don’t understand it. After all, they’ve never seen it before.  And it’s even better when they don’t know what to call it. Keep going!

Why did you do this?  This is a good question because it makes clear they see the demo as a deviation from historically significant lines of success.  And since the lines of success are long in the tooth, it’s good they see it as a violation of what worked in the olden days.  Keep going!

Whose idea was this? This is code: “This crazy thing is a waste of time and we could have applied resources to that tired old recipe we’ve been flogging for a decade now.”  It means they recognize the prototype will be received differently by the customer.  They don’t think it will be received well, but they know the customer will think it’s different.  Keep going!

Who approved this work? This is code: “I want to make this go away and I hope my boss’s boss doesn’t know about it so I can scuttle the project.”  But not to worry because the demo is so good it cannot be dismissed, ignored, or scuttled. Keep going!

Can you do another demo for my boss?  This one’s easy.  They like it and want to increase the chances they’ll be able to work on it.  That’s a nice change!

Why didn’t you do this, that, or the other? They recognized the significance, they understood the limitations, and they asked a question about how to make it better. Things are looking up!

How much did the hardware cost? They see the new customer value and want to understand if the cost is low enough to commercialize with a good profit margin.  There’s no stopping this thing!

Can we take it to the next tradeshow and show it to customers?  Success!

Image credit — Bennilover

If you try to change what you cannot, your trying will not bring about change. But it will bring about 100% frustration, 100% dissatisfaction, 100% missed expectations, 0% progress, and, maybe, 0% employment.

Here’s a rule: If success demands you must change what you cannot, you will be unsuccessful.

If you try to change something you cannot change but someone else can, you will be unsuccessful unless you ask them for help.  That part is clear.  But here’s the tricky part – unless you know you cannot change it and they can, you won’t know to ask them.

If you know enough to ask the higher power for help and they say no but you try to change it anyway, you will be unsuccessful.  I don’t think that needed to be said, but I thought it important to overcommunicate to keep you safe.

Here’s the money question – How do you know if you can change it?

Here’s another rule: If you want to know if you can change something, ask.

If the knowledgeable people on the project say they cannot change it, believe them.  Make a record of the assessment for future escalation, define the consequences, and rescope the project accordingly.  Next, search the organization (hint – look north) for someone with more authority and ask them if they can grant the authority to change it.  If they say no, document their decision and stick with the rescoped project plan.  If they say yes, document their decision and revert to the original project plan.

If you do one thing tomorrow, ask your project team if success demands they change something they cannot.  I surely hope their answer is no.

Image credit — zczillinger

In business, we have vision statements, mission statements, strategic plans, strategic initiatives, and operating plans. And every day there are there are countless decisions to make. But, in the end, it all comes down to one thing – how we allocate our resources.  Whether it’s hiring people, training them, buying capital, or funding projects, all strategic decisions come back to resource allocation.  Said more strongly, resource allocation is strategy.

Take a look back at last year.  Where did you allocate your capital dollars?  Which teams got it and which did not?  Your capital allocation defined your priorities.  The most important businesses got more capital.  More to the point – the allocated capital defined their importance. Which projects were fully staffed and fully budgeted? Those that were resourced more heavily were more important to your strategy, which is why they were resourced that way. Which businesses hired people and which did not?  The hiring occurred where it fulfilled the strategy. Which teams received most of the training budget?  Those teams were strategically important.  Prioritization in the form of resource allocation.

Repeat the process for this year’s operating plan.  Where is the capital allocated?  Where is the hiring allocated?  Where are the projects fully staffed and budgeted?  Regardless of the mission statements, this year’s strategy is defined by where the resources are allocated.  Full stop.

Repeat the process for your forward-looking strategic plans.  Where are the resources allocated?  Which teams get more?  Which get fewer?  Answer these questions and you’ll have an operational definition of your company’s forward-looking strategy.

To know if the new strategy is different from the old one, look at the budgets.  Do they show a change in resource allocation?  Will old projects stop so new ones can start? Do the new projects serve new customers and new value propositions?  Same old projects, same old customers, same old value propositions, same old strategy.

To determine if there’s a new strategy, look for changes in capital allocation.  If the same teams are allocated more of the same capital, it’s likely the strategy is also the same. Will one team get more capital while the others get less?  Well, it’s likely a new strategy is starting to take shape.

Look for a change in hiring.  Fewer hires like last year and more of a new flavor probably indicate a change in strategy.  And if people flow from one team to another, that’s the same as one team getting new hires and the other team losing them.  That type of change in resource allocation is an indicator of a strategic change.

If the resource allocation differs from the strategic plan, believe the resource allocation. And if the resource allocation is the same as last year, so is the strategy.  And if there is talk of changing resource allocation but no actual change, then there is no change in strategy.

Image credit – Scouse Smurf