business leadership Tag Archive

By |

What are you waiting for?

Change: Realize Your Greatest Potential

It’s pretty clear the world is changing at a remarkable pace. And this pace, as overwhelming as it feels today, is poised to steadily increase – many say it will continue to double every five years. So if you thought the last 20 years were something, the next 20 will be something else.

For example, within three years there will 10 billion “things” connected to the internet, everything from your keys in case you lose them, to streetlights and garage doors so you can control them. Remote controlled air ambulances, cars that drive themselves and package-delivering drones were science fiction just a few years ago, but today they are real and tomorrow they will be commonplace.

The change is naturally spilling out everywhere, in culture, strategy, service, product development, communication, manufacturing and on and on. As evidenced by Kodak and Blockbuster and many more, those who fail to see to the change and course correct will find themselves at a distinct disadvantage – or even gone.

As Eric Shinseki said, “If you don’t like change, you are going to like irrelevance even less.”

Today’s world is often defined as VUCA – volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Volatile because challenges are unexpected and situations are unstable; uncertain due the lack of predictability and the likelihood of surprise; complex because situations have so many interconnected issues that chaos and confusion are often the norm; ambiguous because we have not been here before – precedents don’t exist for many of the opportunities and challenges staring us down today.

Yet in the midst of this appears to be the greatest panacea of opportunity the world has ever seen.

We take for granted how much is available to us now. We know where population is distributed and where it’s growing, we have unprecedented access to capital, knowledge, innovation and technology, and we have the ability to combine them to create value. The question is: will we?

Will we push to find new ways to create value, to connect with people and share ideas? Will we move away from what worked yesterday if it looks like it won’t work tomorrow? Will we push ourselves past what is in pursuit of what could be? Will we realize the potential that comes with change – in ourselves and in the organizations we serve – or will we settle for the status quo?

I am convinced that most of us are missing out. That far too often we become lulled into a false sense of security and the belief we should wait, accept the role, status or result we have been assigned.

That we should let things work themselves out as opposed to getting out there and making them work. That we should wait for permission or approval before taking action. The question, as David Lazarenko put it, is, “Are you a waiter or a creator?”

So, while many accept the notion that we should stand in line and patiently wait while someone else decides the next opportunity or right move, we know that day has come and gone. And it is no longer up to anyone else.

We have an opportunity to think differently and go beyond what “is” today to find the potential in people and organizations, and be intentional about making it a reality. We combine intentionality and potential and call it “potentionality.” It’s what drives us, and it is at the heart of why we go to work every. It is a made up word, but it’s apropos to the idea of seizing opportunity in change.

If you don’t see an opportunity, just create one!

Shift in Thinking is a monthly article from chief storyteller David Baker with a call to action for organizations and individuals. Using engaging narratives and probing questions, he seeks to provoke a new way of thinking around brand, culture and leadership, and to help readers intentionally realize their potential – Potentionality!

Read more »

By |

Specific vs Diffuse: Part 2

specific-diffuse2

Two weeks ago David Baker, CEO of Think.Shift, wrote a provocative article challenging axioms – statements we believe to be self-evident truths. In this article I want to use him as an example of how to intentionally use both specific and diffuse forms of communication effectively.

In a previous article I noted that some people are specific in their communication with intent to bring forth clarity of thought and others are more diffuse in their communication with intent to bring forth commonality of thought.

Both styles have value, and the value is enhanced if you’re intentional about your natural style and the style appropriate for your audience. While my natural style is specific, David Baker is able to use either style based on what is appropriate for the audience. Let me provide two examples of David’s writing to illustrate this point and speak to the value of being intentional in your communication.

In the last Food for Thought article Caution: Falling Axioms, David wanted to respect the provocative nature of these articles.

To be provocative and controversial, you need to be specific in establishing your point of view and contrasting it with alternative points of view.

In analyzing the axiom, “If you are going to bring me a problem, make sure you bring with it a solution,” David points out that the traditional view contrasts an employee who is building with an employee who is throwing rocks. Having been specific in that contrast, he switches to the other side and provides concrete and convincing arguments as to why you should promote and encourage employees raising issues for which they have no solution. His style of specific communication is very effective.

A couple decades ago, I learned an interesting lesson. Trained as an engineer, with a background in math and a passion for logic, I have always been specific in my communication. But, while listening to my VP of marketing tell our sales force about a new series of products we were introducing, I learned that diffuse communication might achieve your results better than being specific. He drew an X-Y axes, labeled the horizontal axis with old products and new products, talked about how the old products had floundered, spoke about the amazing value of the new products and drew a sweeping graph that zig-zagged from the bottom left to the top right, proclaiming that our new products are going to take our business to new heights.

Questions came to my mind: What was the X-axis? Products? How were they arranged? By introduction date? What was the Y-axis? Units? Dollars? Was this a cumulative graph? If so, how did the graph go down with the current products? I was trying to figure it all out. Meanwhile, our sales force had heard the rallying cry. They were pumped. They cheered! Had my marketing VP not accomplished his goal? How does it matter if the graph didn’t make any sense? Being diffuse might have been the best way to communicate to that audience at that moment!

Let’s come back to David Baker. In his monthly blog, David wrote an interesting post titled “What is Normal?” He pointed out that, while most people try to fit in and be normal, it is the outliers that get noticed. To make his point he drew this picture.

by Think.Shift

by Think.Shift

Of course, I had a plethora of questions: What does the line mean? What is represented by a circle on the left side versus the right side? How about circles above and below? Are circles above and to the right better because that is the way we think? And what do the size of the circles mean? Are bigger circles better? Yet, in spite of all my questions, I understood what he was saying in the article. The picture communicated it. Was he being diffuse? Absolutely! Was he effective in his communication? Superbly! In a blog, where the intent typically is to connect with people rather than provoke them, diffuse communication allows for each reader to interpret as they choose and find common ground.

It’s important to understand both specific and diffuse communication.

Each has its value. Each is more effective in different circumstances. Each of us has a preference in our own individual style. Yet, it behooves us to be intentional about using the right style for the right situation.

On this topic, my good friend and colleague, Glenn Mangurian, pointed out that the appropriate style not only depends on the circumstance, but the speaker-listener chemistry. Glenn and I developed the following model for what might happen based on whether the speaker and the listener are specific or diffuse:

  • When the speaker and listener are both specific, they are likely to assert and evaluate. On the positive side, they might find clear agreement or find disagreement and extend their thought process. But the same conversation could turn into a debate, with each of them arguing and trying to prove that he or she is right.
  • When the speaker is specific and the listener is diffuse, they are likely to assert and consider. The listener respects the speaker’s point of view and learns. But the speaker could also be viewed as being arrogant and opinionated, with the listener agreeing in pretense.
  • When the speaker is diffuse and the listener is specific, they are likely to explore but evaluate. The listener is likely to ask for clarification and agree or offer a different point of view. Alternatively, the conversation could turn into an argument where the listener browbeats the speaker for specificity that the speaker either does not have or is not willing to offer.
  • When the speaker and the listener are both diffuse, the conversation is likely to explore and agree. Both the speaker and listener could become innovative and the conversation could become generative. Or the conversation could meander without reaching conclusion, with both the speaker and the listener agreeing without understanding.
by Think.Shift

by Think.Shift

In each case, conversation can take on a positive tone and create value or a negative tone and destroy value.

It is useful to acknowledge the natural tendency the speaker and listener and intentionally drive the conversation toward the positive, value-creating outcomes.

I want to end this article by recognizing David’s ability to switch modes when appropriate and thank him for letting me use his example to illustrate the value of being intentionally specific or diffuse. I encourage my readers to read David’s monthly blog.

We will be elaborating on these concepts in a webinar on
Wednesday, May 27th from 10:30 am – 11:30 am (PDT).

Two special guests will be at the webinar, David Baker and Glenn Mangurian, who will chime in with their thoughts on specific versus diffuse. We encourage you to sign up and attend; please visit the event registration page here for more details.

Read more »

By |

The importance of a business mentor

Who’s your mentor?

Having a business mentor who you can bounce ideas off of is an invaluable asset. It can make a huge difference in the success of your dental practice and the future of your business. Most of us always think we know the correct answers to all of the business issues that come at us on a daily basis but that might not be very realistic. You cannot possibly be all knowing in every dental and business subject matter. It helps to have a great support network and that should include a great mentor.

Continue Reading

Read more »

× Close