The Six Enemies of Greatness (and Happiness)

1) Availability

2) Ignorance

3) Committees

4) Comfort

5) Momentum

6) Passivity

​Since reading "Good to Great" I see so clearly why most companies never get to great.  Good is definitely the enemy of great and these are six good examples of that.  Click through to the article to read a short definition. 

I believe 3 and 4 are the key ones I have seen.  The more people are successful, they tend to not want to push the envelope because they are "punished" if things don't work.  Committees tend to make things harder to accomplish greatness, because there is always too much compromise.  Small groups of people make greatness.

Marketers, Go Back to Basics

"There's so much that's sexy in social media and in mobile right now," he said. "Anyone who's bought a smartphone in the last 18 months is doing some things they hadn't imagined yet." When they read about a big company launching a cutting-edge initiative, they want in — but the economics usually only make sense for large companies that have experimental budgets. Instead, he says it often pays to focus on bread-and-butter marketing (like direct mail) or even on technical innovations of the past few years that are effective, but less novel (like mobile websites).

In the gaming industry, direct mail is still king.  In fact, it's not really close with a response rate of over 4X then email alone.  Yet, many marketers get caught up in the sexy new marketing trends.  Social gets more attention than direct marketing, even though direct marketing brings much more profit.  Likes are revered, yet direct mail is boring and so yesterday.  Sometimes whats worked in the past is what will work in the future.  

Will Data Science Become the New Bottleneck? - Forbes

many have posited that recalcitrant IT departments, hidebound by a history of rigid organization, have been a bottleneck to the adoption of new technologies and, by extension, the ability to distill business value from data.

We’ve also examined the potential and difficulties of analyzing big data, arguing that a new class of analyst, the data scientist, is on the rise in many organizations.

That may be part of the problem, rather than the solution.

I think this will be a major problem as big data moves into the mainstream.  So many organizations struggle with IT getting data that is readily available in the organization, wait until 20 groups are pinging 2 data scientists, who by nature are slow and go down unnecessary rabbit holes to find the truth.   

In reality, most businesses don't need all this data.  They need to perfect using their current data to drive actionable results.  Until they do that, there is no need to bring big data into the organization.  ​

Google, destroyer of ecosystems

The truth is this: Google destroyed the RSS feed reader ecosystem with a subsidized product, stifling its competitors and killing innovation. It then neglected Google Reader itself for years, after it had effectively become the only player. Today it does further damage by buggering up the already beleaguered links between publishers and readers. It would have been better for the Internet if Reader had never been at all.

I think the conversation here is what free does to ecosystems.  When businesses as big as google offer free services, they are killing the value of said services.  When the value of a service is perceived to be 0, it effectively puts everyone out of business who has to make money from a similar service.  Then, because a big company is making no money from the service and every company eventually starts looking for ways to improve bottom-line, they cut the service because it is nothing but a cost.​

I think we see this with the tablet market, even though tablets are being sold and not given away for free, they are being sold at a loss to gain market share.  Eventually that devalues the market for tablets and nobody wins.  The tablet makers who have the market share eventually get tired of selling at a loss and stop innovating and the tablet makers making money will get out of the business because they can't compete.  Of course Apple is more than likely the anomaly in this situation.​

Content providers on the internet already went through this.  They have now seen giving content away for free has devalued the content and trying to charge after the fact remains difficult to say the least.  ​

In my humble opinion I would like to see businesses compete on innovation instead of price (or lack of price).  In this case, everyone wins.  The best services, products and content survive and the companies that are producing them will be around for a long time because they are making profits.  Everybody wins.  Good for the customer, good for the business.

Innovation Is About Arguing, Not Brainstorming. Here's How To Argue Productively | Co.Design: business + innovation + design

Turns out that brainstorming--that go-to approach to generating new ideas since the 1940s--isn’t the golden ticket to innovation after all. Both Jonah Lehrer, in a recent article in The New Yorker, and Susan Cain, in her new book Quiet, have asserted as much. Science shows that brainstorms can activate a neurological fear of rejection and that groups are not necessarily more creative than individuals. Brainstorming can actually be detrimental to good ideas.

What?  What's that you say?  I have always thought this.  The best innovation n my career has been with small teams that trust each other and can argue.  Arguing has such a negative connotation, but arguing without personal feelings makes for great innovation.  People always talk about consensus and meeting in the middle, however that is the opposite of innovating.  When arguing goes right, the result is like a pyramid shape.  Instead of meeting in the middle, the middle is raised and something better comes from the debate.

But the idea behind brainstorming is right. To innovate, we need environments that support imaginative thinking, where we can go through many crazy, tangential, and even bad ideas to come up with good ones. We need to work both collaboratively and individually. We also need a healthy amount of heated discussion, even arguing. We need places where someone can throw out a thought, have it critiqued, and not feel so judged that they become defensive and shut down. Yet this creative process is not necessarily supported by the traditional tenets of brainstorming: group collaboration, all ideas held equal, nothing judged.

All ideas are not equal.  I have a colleague that throws out ideas all the time, some good, mostly bad.  But the good ones change the organization and if she would feel bad when the answer is no, I wouldn't be as successful as I am.  Surround yourself with people who can take it when the answer is no.

Seth's Blog: Waiting for all the facts

All the facts are never in.  

The real question isn't whether you have all the facts. The real question is, "do I know enough to make a useful decision?" (and no decision is still a decision).

Seth is brilliant.  There is a quote by Colin Powell

Use the formula P=40 to 70, in which P stands for the probably of success and the numbers indicate the percentage of information acquired."  Part II: "Once the information is in the 40 to 70 range, go with your gut."

You never have all the facts and there is not amount of data that will lead to 100% certainty of making the right choices.  If you wait for 100% of the facts, you waited to long.

Want to be successful? Be inconsistent

Embrace being inconsistent

My conclusion on the topic of consistency is that it’s not required for success. There is a lot of talk about hard-nosed businessmen needing to be true to their word and never change their mind. I think a better approach is to be open to making adjustments as you learn more. That’s the smarter thing to do. It’s also much more difficult.

Don't be afraid to change your mind.  Be decisive, yet flexible.  Communication is the key when changing views or direction.  If your team knows why the decisions have been changed and what is going on in your mind, they will buy into the change much quicker.  If changes are constantly dictated down without any reason for the change, teams will get frustrated and feel like they are constantly spinning their wheels.  

David Allmark: What do you tell a team that has failed? | 30 Second MBA

I have always believed you don't celebrate the victories and punish the failures.  It leads to everyone focusing on the outcomes, instead of taking calculated risks and innovating.  When failure is punished, teams tend to lean towards conservative programs that are sure fire, but minimal growth.  This leads to a stagnate team that doesn't drive large incremental value.

Seth's Blog: Beauty vs. specs

Some can't understand why a product or service doesn't catch on. They can prove that it's better. They can quote specs and performance and utility. It's obvious.

The other might be willing to look at the specs, but he really doesn't understand them enough to care. All he knows is that the other choice is beautiful--it makes him feel good. He wants to use it.

Since the iPad mini announcement the bulk of pundits say it costs too much.  $329 is higher than I would have liked it to be, of course I would like it to be free if I had my choice.  But Apple is playing for the long run.  

Apple could have created a $249 iPad mini, they are perfectly capable.  However, they chose to make the product that aligns with their brand and is beautiful.  In the long run it pays off.

Will Apple Repeat The Most Dangerous Strategic Mistake Leaders of Fast Growing Corporation Can Make? - Forbes

It amazes me how many companies, even Forbes, use Apple to grab headlines.  This article is about nothing.  The two arguments being used are litigation and switching maps?  Let me elaborate for a minute on each:​

The litigation against Samsung are a necessary evil.  Nowhere does the article mention that Apple was asking Samsung for license agreements pretrial.  ​Apple should defend their innovation, else we will get the refrigerator market, where every piece looks exactly the same and does the same thing.  This is good for consumers because manufacturers only compete on price, however in the long run it is terrible for consumers because innovation is non-existent.

The maps debate is getting old.  Apple had to make a move away from Google because of turn-by-turn navigation.  It was an easy talking point for Apple competitors.  Apple will now be allowed to innovate in the maps arena which should allow for greater maps from Apple and Google in the future.  This will be so much better for the consumer.  ​

In both these cases Apple is not making the mistake of these other companies.  Apple is looking out for the customer by allowing innovation and making it expensive to copy instead of innovate.  Both will lead to better customer experiences as time passes.​

The Secret Phrase Top Innovators Use - Warren Berger - Harvard Business Review

Very interesting article how a single word can change the way people behave.​