Executive Wisdom for Business

Let's do an audit ... on you

Some business people are feeling that the current economic environment is forcing them to operate outside of their bailiwick with all the nervousness and implacable worry of an elephant attempting to dance the Pride of Erin in treacle. They believe their plight is becoming desperate and are increasingly plaintive.

Self-audits are a wonderful reality check to bring some normality back to our impressions of the world and our perceptions of ourselves.

1. Customers have slowed in their spending for legitimate reasons and not.
2. You have slowed in your spending for legitimate reasons and not. Now you're even ... get over it and get back to work.
3. People hate whatever computer system or software program they are using.
4. Your competitors say they are picking up new business that you're not, even though they are operating in the same markets as you, with the same products and service offerings as you, with the same advertising and marketing approaches as you. If it's true, stop blaming bad luck, there's a reason. Find what it is and do something about it.
5. You've started treating everyone as a prospect for fear of missing any type of sale. Stop it! Focus on the appropriate people, who have a need and budget, and whom you will enjoy working with. A poor prospect never makes a good client. Especially in an economic downturn. Don't make things worse for yourself by agreeing to work with poor prospects.
6. Lay-offs improve profitability ... that's a myth. Lay-offs only increase the burden on those remaining in the organisation. Usually, that burden is an increased administrative load which contributes nothing to revenues or profits, and disengages and demotivates everyone.
7. Technology geeks may be on the cutting edge but they are spending time that could be invested better in communication with clients, which strengthens your relationships with them. Having the perfect IT system produces no more business (for most organisations) than an IT system that's at 85% of what the geeks believe it should be.
8. Before investing much in the thoughts of an industry expert, first check their credentials thoroughly. And, have they achieved successfully, what they are telling you to do and advising you on. (In Australia at the moment, there are many experts consulting to the legal, accounting and recruitment professions, who themselves actually failed in the profession - although they are unwilling to admit it.)
9. Complaining how busy you are is a waste of time.
10. A clean desk (no matter what anyone says) is much better than a messy desk.
11. You can't do it all. What you did is what you did. Did you do the most important (not urgent - but important) stuff?
12. Find out what you are really good at and ensure you are doing a lot of it.
13. Contributing to others is a way of life.
14. Treat everyone with respect.
15. When in doubt ... laugh.
16. Most importantly, have fun doing what you're doing.

Are you having fun?

Ric Willmot

If you need help with any of the above, you have options, and they include:

• Join the Executive Wisdom Coaching Club (it matters not where you live in the world, so long as you have a computer and the internet).
• Join one of our Coaching or Mentoring Programs (once again, geography is not restriction to membership).
• Attend the Professional Services College or the Executive Wisdom Business College.

Political bailout of a problem caused by political interference

The NY Times had an article written by Steven Holmes that was published on September 30, 1999 entitled: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending.

Frequently, politicians involve themselves in matters for which they do not posses the necessary experience, education, knowledge, skills or understanding. It's not always necessary for the government of the day to involve itself and force issues (excepting for the votes that interference may deliver at the next poll) - and sometimes it can be just downright dangerous.

Clearly, Lehman Brothers bankers were guilty of packaging and selling rubbish. However, they didn't create the rubbish. The Clinton Administration has to accept responsibility for that.

Find a social problem and when you research it, you more often than not will find a politician.

If any of you are genuinely interested in understanding how this all started, read the complete article on the NY Times website. I wonder where Steven Holmes is now; I'd like to get his take on all of this. He could certainly see the dangers back in 1999.

Lessons to be learned:

1. When someone tells you, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," be VERY cautious.
2. If you don't have the necessary knowledge, learn it, or hire it in. That's why I do so well as a consultant, business people hire me in to give them the knowledge they do not already possess internally.
3. You have to help yourself before you can help others around you. This is exactly why the cabin crew tell you to put your own oxygen mask on first before helping your children or others around you.
4. Not everyone can be helped, nor should everyone be helped. Especially, if you put at risk other stakeholders.
5. Government, politicians and public servants need to learn some humility and accept that they aren't always the smartest people in the room. Get a second opinion from someone trained in the area.

 

Ric Willmot

The Defining Aspect of Competition

Words and language fascinate me. One reason for that interest has to do with meaning, and how easily sentences can mean entirely different things when emphasis or arrangement change. Consider, "I told only her that I loved her" versus, "I only told her that I loved her."

Now think about the title to this topic, "the defining aspect of competition." In a more subtle way, like an illusion, you can interpret the meaning in two different ways. The simplest is to think that it's about the special and unique thing that the word competition requires. In other words, what's the one, unique thing that must be present if we want to use the word "competition"?

Ah, but there's a more interesting angle here. Suppose we were to make "competition" an active force, a noun instead of a verb? We could then change the meaning of the phrase and arrive at, "How does working with competition create a definition of something?" Now we're asking about the force of competition and it's impact on definition.

Let's add to the mix the importance of definition itself. Do we really need definition? Suppose we're the captain of a ship arriving at a busy port. There's a heavy fog and it's late afternoon. How much definition do we want in terms of the shapes, sizes, and positions of other ships in the nearby area? Do we care? Do those other ships need to be seen clearly, or can we just shrug them off as vague shapes?

What do we intend with the word definition: clarity or meaning?

Realistically, clarity and meaning have very similar connotations. We ask someone to define a term in a conversation both because we want to be clear about what they're saying, and because we'd like to know what they think the term means. Either way, the concept of definition means better thinking, clarity of that thinking, and more comprehensive interaction with concepts.

Imagine a bicycle race. Now imagine that race where you're the only person in the event. There's you, your bike, and nobody else. Strange race, true, but imagine it just the same. Because it's only you, there's no competition.

How do you know if you're any good as a bicycle rider? More importantly, how do you know if your bike is any good? Is it a quality bike? In fact, how much do you even care about the entire structure and concept of your bike if there's no competition?

So many of us look at competition as a threat. In the US, competition is being removed from school environments because it upsets children. They feel badly when they don't win or place in a competitive event. Their self-esteem drops, and we wouldn't want that, would we? No, of course not.

The problem is that without competition, how does anyone develop a sense of clarity and meaning about who they are? How do we define a personality without feedback and interaction with other personalities? Have you ever heard the term "borderline personality disorder?"

One way to understand a borderline personality disorder is to think that it might be a disorder, or it might not be...hard to tell. It's a borderline judgment call. But the proper meaning of the term is that a person has difficulty placing borders around their own sense of self. They can't clearly differentiate themselves from things and living entities around their body. They lose themselves.

In the same way, a business without competition begins to lose its borders, characteristics, clarity and meaning. Without constant feedback, all sorts of processes begin to blur, fade and collapse. The business loses its core mission, basic product lines, and eventually ends up out of touch with reality (which is the same as the marketplace).

Competition is a feedback system. The more competition, the more complex the feedback. In a bicycle race of only two riders, each is focused only on the few differences that might affect the outcome. But in a race with hundreds of cyclists, every imaginable aspect of not only the bikes, but also the riders themselves comes into question.

Increased competition means increased complexity. With increased complexity comes more variation. And with more variation, deeper assumptions are called into question. Those entities that successfully compete, do so because they have the sharpest vision of themselves. They have the most clear understanding of exactly who they are, why they exist, how they function, and where they can improve.

Instead of always focusing on how to change in order to better compete, try reversing the flow of information. Examine how your competition is demanding that you become increasingly aware of exactly who and what you are. Every competitive interaction is better clarifying your definition of yourself. That's a good thing!

In Debt and Conflicted

Ford Harding had a post on his blog this week where he posed the following problem. I answered Ford and have included my response at the bottom. 

Ford's Post:

Every other Thursday, I present a rainmaking problem for which I don’t have satisfactory answers. Here is another in our series brought to me at a coaching session by a professional whom I will call Hazel. I have seen this problem before and always have been uncomfortable with my answers. I hope you will offer your suggestions in the comments at the end of this post.

Hazel made partner at her firm about a year ago, after two back-to-back years of delivering over $3,000,000 in new business. Her biggest client in both years was an insurance company, where her primary sponsor was a man named Bill. Bill had also hired her to work on five matters already this year. Yesterday he called to inform her that he had been let go and set up a time to meet with her next week.

Hazel dreads this meeting. She knows she owes Bill a lot and wants to help him, both because she feels she has a debt to repay and because he has three small children at home. But she is reluctant to introduce him to her other clients.

After three years of working with him, she is all too familiar with his weaknesses. Though nice enough, he makes many sloppy mistakes and frequently fails to follow through on his commitments. A high-maintenance client, he requires constant attention and also takes criticism poorly.

There are ethical and practical aspects to her problem.

• The ethical problem: She owes Bill a huge debt. Without his business she would not have been promoted to partner. He has also served unfailingly as a reference. She made a significant mistake on one assignment for him, which he caught and dealt with generously. On the other hand, she also is indebted to the people he will want introductions to. And she owes her other clients and contacts fair treatment, too. She is uncomfortable giving Bill her implicit endorsement in a referral.

• The practical problem: She is most concerned about the ethical issues, but is naturally aware of the practical ones. Bill has already stated that he will give her business no matter where he lands. That pledge, she knows, would not withstand Bill realizing that she was withholding aid during his job search. If she refers him to another client who hires him, that client is bound to become aware of his shortcomings. If the new job doesn’t work out and he is let go, it could reflect badly on her.

I have been in a similar situation, myself, and felt as torn as Hazel does. What should a professional do in this situation?

Here is my response:

1. Never assume the client is damaged
2. Focus on observed behaviour
3. It’s not the referrers role to cover corporate governance
4. Never provide unsolicited feedback

Bill has certain skills and attributes that are valuable to employers, else why was he in the previous role? Why is it that the faults we so easily see in others also hides their strengths? He has value to offer.

Consider only observable facts, interpretations of the facts will always bring us unglued.

Make the introductions and then allow the two parties to engage in their decisions as they do with any other business relationship. We are not required to make the world perfect for others.

No need to provide Bill with feedback about his performance or behaviour unless he asks for it. Unsolicited feedback is always given for the ego of the giver not for the benefit of the receiver.

Make the introductions and help Bill in appropriate ways that comfortably assuage our considerations - and then get out of the way. Your clients have hired thousands of people; they probably know how to engage in behavioural interviewing techniques and how to obtain references on past performance.

For all of the faults that can be seen in Bill; he may well be a standout in his field compared to his peers. We could be doing a disservice by not recommending him. Good people are hard to find.

Rgds,
Ric Willmot
W: www.executivewisdom.com
B: www.ricwillmot.com

Ric Willmot

Money Doesn't Grow on Trees

For kids growing up in many parts of the world, their parents telling them that money doesn't grow on trees is pretty much a shared, cultural memory. It's right up there with, "If Johnny jumped off a bridge would you have to do that too?" Most of us grow up with the understanding that wasting resources costs money, and it takes work to get that money. We tend to at least be vaguely cognizant of how much things cost.

Unfortunately, although we may realize that the things we buy cost money, and that the utilities we use cost money, fewer people seem to understand that a business isn't a fact of nature. We hear terms like "seed money," "growing a business," and other agricultural metaphors, but how many people understand metaphors anymore?

More and more, lawsuits go after the "deep pockets" of Business. It doesn't really matter if a business is a mom-and-pop grocery store or a global enterprise; people seem to think that a business is the same as an oil well, pumping money out of the ground. Where did the money come from? It's a natural event.

Another area where this idea takes hold is in labor laws, union contracts, and employer-employee relations of all sorts. Employees believe that the money they're paid is doled out of a wellspring containing unlimited cash. It's only that people who were there first, or people without a morality of "the common good" choose to withhold money for no particular reason.

Money doesn't grow on trees, and businesses don't sprout from the ground. In all cases, people with minds and passion spent a good part of their lives working to make a business exist. When those people leave, either they're replaced with others who also understand the principle, or the business goes away. Science tells us that chaos (entropy) is the natural state of things, but we seem to be paying less and less attention.

I wonder what would happen if, instead of silly classes in sensitivity, business leaders were to provide virtual boss days? What would happen if once a month, business owners selected a handful of employees and made them CEO for a Day?

The next time you face a problem situation, take a moment to determine whether or not your opponent(s) believe that you have nothing whatsoever to do with The Business. Listen to their reasoning, and you'll start to see the astonishing number of people who believe that any business "just was there somehow, along with the trees and rivers."

The result of this type of vapid philosophy is that a growing number of political activism groups, lobbying groups, and other organizations are pushing for total regulation. The belief is that no amount of regulation will ever impact real business and a real economy. If they wipe out all business owners, the remaining entities will be like national parks, there for everyone to enjoy.

An Odd Conundrum of Leadership

Let's suppose we have a charismatic leader, someone who manages to always be the apparent decision-maker in situations. Let's further suppose that we discover this leader first in a social setting, not a business environment.

A group of friends goes out to a restaurant, getting into a discussion about where they'd like to eat. Our leader is the person who suggests a particular place, and somehow, with only a little discussion, everyone decides that's the place to go. Maybe a group of friends goes out sailing, and at some point, this leader suggests that it's probably time to head for shore. Somehow, everyone else has decided it's time to head for shore.

Perhaps this mysterious leader is talking about an interesting new art gallery, a fun place to vacation, or maybe a cool new technology device. Oddly enough, within a matter of weeks, everyone else seems to have discovered this gallery, vacation spot, or electronic toy. What's going on?

We can approach the analysis from two very different directions, arriving at the same outward set of actions. One view of things is that our example leader is so charismatic, so appealing, and so something, they manage to convince large groups of people to move in the same direction. We might think they have a magical aura, or perhaps they give off some strange pheromone that predisposes surrounding people to act in concert.

Another approach is that this leader is a brilliant master of timing. This too, could break out into two different perspectives. On the one hand, the leader consciously and with complete intent understands that the time is right to head for shore, go to a particular restaurant, or whatever. It would be a skill something akin to clairvoyance.

On the other hand, we might say that our leader happens to be tuned in to the current emotional structure of the general population. In this instance, it would be as if the leader just happens to have the same background, same tastes, same history, same culture, and same everything as everyone else. When he or she gets tired of sailing, it just happens that everyone else was thinking the same thing. It's only that the leader was first to articulate those feelings.

How do we know if a leader just happens to represent the same inner drives and motives of the crowds who follow the leader? On the other hand, how can we tell if the leader is actually setting a new trend, creating a desire to do something that the crowd of followers hadn't imagined?

The leader who creates a new direction, does so through innovation and creative problem-solving. The leader who happens to be on a timing cusp, does so by being the first to speak out about existing circumstances.

Not all leaders gain followers through social skills, friendliness, and statesmanship. Many leaders arise through application of power. For example, a very wealthy person might appear to be a leader due to the reluctance of those in the surrounding crowd to cause offense. Does such a threat condition create a great leader...or only a strong leader?

Great leaders understand human nature, inter-relationships between people, and ideals. They have a creative approach to life, using fewer assumptions and viewing problems as entirely new events. They have great articulation and oratory skills, with an innate understanding of persuasive language. They also understand the application of power and authority, knowing when to end a discussion and act.

Even so, leadership does depend upon an understanding of timing, and knowing when an idea is "too" new or "too" threatening to the status quo. It's that leadership isn't only a result of good timing. There first must be the larger talent of creative pragmatism.

Sunnies & Largemouth Bass

We all know that life shows us all sorts of metaphors—symbolic representations. Another way of saying the same thing is that much of what we notice around us is a harmonic resonation to what's going on inside ourselves. The basic idea is to notice what we notice—to pay attention to the fact that we're suddenly focusing on something to the level of distraction.

It's not a problem for us to actually pay attention to something. Instead, the skill we want to develop is to additionally notice the act of noticing, itself. It requires a bit of objectivity to step back and say, "Gee, I'm sure paying a lot of attention to this thing lately."

Most of us simply attend that thing, without realizing that we're exerting some energy in a repetitive way. We don't notice that we're getting stuck paying attention to some particular thing, over and over again.

Suddenly, we're noticing something repeatedly, more than just in passing. And, this is often an important clue to what's going on elsewhere in our lives. We notice things for a reason, even if we don't at first consciously understand that reason.

In many ways, this relates to the psychological concepts of projection and transference. Whatever repeatedly captures our attention, it usually tends to contain the solution to some problem we're having in our lives. We're just so busy worrying about the problem itself, we don't see the way out.

I love to fish, and particularly, I like to cook up the fish I catch. There's nothing better than fresh fried fish, right out of the water, and so I've spent many a fine summer afternoon looking for dinner with a pole, some lures, and a lake. Around here, the common fish to go after is the largemouth bass, sometimes called a black bass.

Most of our Midwestern lakes are stocked with three basic types of fish; the bass, catfish of some sort, and little sunfish otherwise known as bluegills. Actually, the largemouth bass and the bluegills are all part of the same family, as are rock bass. But it's the little sunnies that are interesting.

Whenever I try out a new lake, the important question is whether or not there are fish in that lake. A quick test is to toss in a lure or even a hook with some bait, and see what happens. The sunnies are like bugs on a lawn or shrimp in the sea—they're everywhere. If there are sunnies in the lake, then there surely are bass and catfish, for the most part.

Over the years, I've tended toward lures because these damn-fool sunnies are always stealing my bait. They're too small to do much with, but they have sharp teeth and are exceptionally fast. They can eat a worm off a hook, hardly ever getting caught. In other words, they're annoying little pests, and other than indicating that it's a healthy lake with larger fish, I've tried to ignore them. And yet, I always notice them.

There came a time when I wanted to know how better to fillet a fish. I got tired of those tiny little pin bones that get stuck between the teeth. When I heard about a video that taught a new system, I bought a copy. Indeed; it looked like something I could learn, but the problem was to have some fish. I needed something to practice on.

"Ah hah," I thought to myself! "I can go grab some sunnies and give it a shot."  For years, I'd been going fishing, my mind set on a fabulous bass dinner. I'd fish and fish, and catch nothing, ending up at the supermarket on the way home, wondering what to buy for dinner. Of course there were those stupid sunnies all over the place, and bass eat sunnies; but, what the hell was I going to do with sunnies? Junk fish...that's all they were.

Sure enough, I went off to the lake and in an hour, had caught about six of the little idiots. I figured that they were so small, this new method of filleting should really get a solid practice run. Plus; if I messed up and didn't get it right, they were only junk fish, not something I really wanted to do a good job with.

The system worked! As promised, this was a way to "unzip a fish" and totally remove all the bones. In fact, despite their being only about palm-sized, the process was so good there ended up being a couple of good mouthfuls worth of meat on each of those sunnies! "Why waste food," I thought, and decided I'd fry them up real quick.

Well, to make a long story even longer, the upshot of the experiment was that sunnies taste fantastic! Being part of the overall bass family, they were easily as good as a largemouth bass, and perhaps even a bit more tasty, all things considered. Hah! And here I'd thought they were just annoying little pests that get in the way.

How often is life the same way? We're so focused on what it is we think we want, we get annoyed when something else gets in our way. Life keeps handing us just what it is we're looking for, but we don't see it because we're looking for something else. Yes, we think we're looking for what we want, but only if it's a certain shape, color, or size.

How often had I gotten my hopes up, envisioning a fantastic dinner of largemouth bass, only to be so disappointed when I went home from the lake empty-handed? I'd even grumble to myself about all those stupid sunnies, and "if only" there were some bigger fish to fry.

For how many years had I ignored all those sunnies, coming to me over and over like flocks of mosquitoes, right up to the shore, following my lure every time? And, over and over again, I'd kept my mind on the horizon, looking and looking for that bigger bass.

I was so sure that I knew exactly what I wanted! I was so sure that the only way it could happen was to catch a largemouth bass! How come I didn't notice that what I really wanted...was a fish dinner?!

The lesson here is that life is related all around. Having noticed and paid attention to sunnies year after year, I should have begun to wonder if perhaps they were the solution, not the problem. Instead of being so arrogant as to fundamentally assume that only I could solve my problem, perhaps I should have wondered if I actually knew what the problem really was?

I didn't want a bass; I wanted a fish dinner. It was only my belief system and set of assumptions that told me sunnies were too small to eat. It was only my lack of knowledge and as-yet-undeveloped skill in filleting that sustained my repeated disappointments. Years of ending up without a fish dinner had passed, and there it was, right in front of me, the solution to my problem: an excellent, easy-to-get fresh fish dinner.

What are you noticing and paying attention to every day that might be a solution? Are you looking for that bass, failing to see all those readily available sunnies? Have you re-stated your "problem" lately, or are you positive you know exactly what is the problem?

The Charm of a Casual Conversation

I so much enjoy conversations with people who were successful in life but have long since retired. They have nothing to prove; but an enormous wealth of wisdom to share. Let me share with you a conversation I had with a lovely gentleman whom I have proudly known for more than half my own lifetime. Take of it what you will ...

Ric: How did you become so successful, selling in such a competitive market like life insurance?
Peter: It wouldn't have mattered if I was an accountant, a lawyer, or an encyclopedia salesman. A good salesperson does not sell as such, rather, she or he presents the product, no matter what it may be, in such a manner as to convince the prospect that she or he should buy. There is a subtle difference in the techniques used, and I am sure you will appreciate this difference ... by creating a desire to buy, you have a far greater percentage of success in concluding a sale, than by trying to force a sale.

R: You retired in the 90s after 30 years with Colonial. What always impressed me about you, was your pride in the business of 'life insurance' and the love of your clients.
P: If you are not proud to be a salesperson, then get out of the business! No matter what you do in life, really we are selling something ... even when Moses came down with the ten tablets, from the mountain, he became a salesman. He had to sell his Ten Commandments to the people of Israel. And, for that matter, the story as I heard it was that when God appeared to him and offered the ten pieces of stone, Moses declined the offer. "But Moses, they are free!" "Oh, then I'll take ten." Now that was a classic piece of salesmanship, wasn't it?

R: Life insurance in the 80s & 90s wasn't popular, and yet you flourished. How?
P: There is only one way you can succeed in your chosen profession, and that is by becoming number one in your community. No prizes for second. Tell me, who was the second person to break the four-minute mile? Who came second in last year's Brownlow Medal Award? And, I got tired of those people who tried to hide the fact they were selling life insurance by calling themselves financial advisers, financial consultants, etc. The injustice applied to unsuspecting clients with those high up-front commission savings plans that many were selling, was dreadful. I was proud to sell life insurance and protect families, wives, children, homes and businesses. Very proud. My business card always had: Life Insurance Agent.

R: Why did you survive, when thousands didn't?
P: I had a very simple business model. Recency, frequency, potency & recommendation. If a client has not seen you recently, they may have seen you frequently. If not, the potency of your impact on them, may still call you to mind. However, if they are looking for someone like you, and they have not seen you recently or frequently, and they weren't particularly impressed enough to call your details to mind, then they will depend upon a third party recommendation, which may not be you. So make sure you keep in regular contact with your existing clients, make certain they are impressed with you and the service you render, and then you will always be sure they will recommend you to their colleagues and friends.

R: If there was one thing that you could say was different about you that made you the Number One guy, as you were, what was it?
P: "Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them." Don't sell the way you would like to be sold, which is the common approach of most salespeople. Present your case the way the prospective client would like to have it presented to him. Present the salient features that would appeal to her, and not what is attractive to you!

We talked some more before I had to leave for the Melbourne airport and my flight back to Brisbane. As we hugged and bid farewell, I hoped to get to have more time with my dear friend. His final words as I closed the door on my taxi, "Have fun and enjoy what you are doing, Ric; it won't ever seem like work."

© Ric Willmot 2008 All rights reserved.

Already tried that ... back in 1952

For those of you who offer advice as part of your business model, you no doubt have heard those mercurial words, "Yeah, we have already tried that, didn't work!"

I have always stated adamantly that the value in my consulting smarts is about the questions I ask rather than the answers I give. And, here is another typical example. The response by your clients to your advice needs to be diagnosed. Yes, diagnosed. They may genuinely have tried your recommendation, but exactly when, exactly how, and what was the outcome they hoped for?

Do not assume that the client knows what you are intending, or that they understand precisely how it should be implemented. When they give you this typical response, it may be for any of three reasons:

1. They are resisting change
2. They are annoyed that you are smarter than them in offering your suggestion
3. They're just an aberrant wise-guy (and I don't mean this in the Mafioso sense, either)

How do you handle this, however, when it happens?
Ask intelligent questions:

1. When, specifically, was it that you attempted this in the past?
2. How are the conditions (environment) different today?
3. What was the exact outcome when you tried this?
4. How did you measure and evaluate the results?
5. Who did the measurement and evaluation?
6. Why, specifically, do you think it didn't work?

By asking these questions you can establish if perhaps what was attempted, was not exactly as you are now recommending today. You will also have the client clearly articulating how the business environment has changed since then (which may effect the resultant dynamics in today's conditions); or that the analysis of the results and outcomes back when it was previously attempted were flawed or at least ineffectual; or that YOUR assumptions may not be appropriate now that you have this additional background information!

Never assume the client is damaged - establish the facts to verify your assumptions. The upside is that the client may become more willing to consider your suggestions after answering your questions (and gaining that BFO - blinding flash of the obvious), or the questions in themselves may actually lead you to providing an even better recommendation after receiving the answers.

© Ric Willmot 2008 All rights reserved.

Political Catharsis

Tonight on a current affairs program, was a story of political madness, which of course will come as no surprise to any of you. The owners of a retail store in the suburb of Ipswich QLD, frustrated with shoplifters created an innovative way to reduce the preponderances of this criminal activity. The in-store security camera capturing video footage of the misdeeds, allowed the owners to create a ‘Wall of Shame.’

This wall had photographs of the criminals in the act of stealing; along with a second photograph (if needed) clearly showing the offenders faces. The entire community: young, old, male, female, caucasian or not, when interviewed by the television program were 100% supportive of the ‘Wall of Shame.’ What was even more interesting, was that on this wall the shop owners wrote that only after a $100 donation was given to the local Salvation Army charity would the photograph be removed.

The results? Shoplifting reduced from ten incidences on average per day to practically nil. And, the charity had recorded some wonderful donations. Then comes the kicker! The local councillor for the area, a professional politician who has never held a “real” job in his entire life, and proudly proclaims his tenure on his tax-payer funded web site, forces the shop owners to remove the ‘Wall of Shame.’

Why?

Because this politician is more concerned about the well-being and protection of rights for the thieves than for the struggling shop owners. These thieves are protected by this aberrant man (and I use that word begrudgingly), who is paid to support the community by the tax dollars of the community. He cares more for the fact that he considered it extortion for the criminals to have to pay $100 to a charity to have the photograph of the act of stealing taken down from public view.

Seriously! Who could make this up?

Many of you subscribe to my monthly newsletter, The Executive Wisdom Times, and I receive so many emails from readers who just adore, “Ric’s Rant.” Aristotle was no intellectual slouch, and he considered  catharsis important as an emotional release. In his day it was often ingenerated through the observation of dramatic and metaphoric theatre. (We can disregard the purging of the bowels interpretation for this article.)

Catharsis serves as a very effective pressure valve for the emotional psychology of thinking people. We need to cry, yell in anger, and let loose at annoyances, because as human beings we do become emotionally embroiled. Naturally, there are those constipated personalities (So I didn't disregard that aspect, after all) who are not capable of ‘letting loose.’

“Ric’s Rant” is my way of venting - it’s my catharsis. Venting can be productive or it can become dangerous. Road rage is a form of venting that is not becoming of sane, rational people who want to co-exist in their community. But I believe that my letters to the editors and my rants in my newsletters are a healthy way for me to blow off steam.

Some of my rants get results, some are ignored. But ... I don’t care (I know that doesn’t shock many of you), because the cathartic therapy is in the writing. That’s one of the reasons I always vote even when I am overseas or interstate, because I am voting against someone or something. Yes, against; because few politicians motivate me but so many do tick me off. Like Paul Tully of Ipswich. I only wish I lived in his electorate so I could have an affect on his next candidacy.

You need to constructively vent, not destructively vent. Not venting creates massive stress. Inappropriate venting may create pain and suffering. Having the right means to vent at the right time in the right manner, is like a natural form of Mylanta.

Of course, if you are continually venting, you may have a kind of idealistic diarrhoea.

© Ric Willmot 2008 All rights reserved.