Copyright 2013 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
This blog post was transferred from another service.
This post could fit into other discussion threads. Instead of choosing only one existing thread, it may be best to make it a new thread.
For a while, I didn't know how seriously to take some comments & questions. Some comments & questions are apparently due to misunderstandings. Some of those seemed to be insulting trash until I realized how the stuff fits together into something useful & somewhat insulting.
Examples -
3 Ps - Policies, Plans & Procedures
Process Maps
RPV - Resources, Processes & Values Model
Issue #1A - How could you possibly think being constantly or consistently repetitive in fast changing situations has any relevance to B2C marketing?
Issue #1B - Why do you state that doing the same things in the same ways will get the same results then advise people to form processes that produce the same results?
Issue #2 - Modules & Interdependencies? Some people wonder - Be serious. How could this help owners of small stores?
Quick Answer -
Modules tend to be stable compared to interdependencies. Modules in established processes are supposed to create consistent results. If results are or become inconsistent accidently, money could be lost & more money may be needed to overcome the problems.
It's possible to produce variable results by adjusting which modules are included or excluded & when.
I'm acknowledging the need to produce different results for a variety of situations.
What matters in this issue are goals & plans to achieve those goals. It'd be foolish to plan to achieve a different goal (produce a different result) without determining which module(s) to change.
The common axiom (worded in various ways) used in this issue is -"Insanity is expecting different results from doing the same things in the same ways in the same situations." What's meant by this is - Whether people want/need a derivative or something totally different, they should be prepared to change their processes as much as necessary.
This may mean leaving their comfort zones of what's familiar & predictable. They may have to depend on unfamiliar sources to get what they need. Finding necessary resources may mean going beyond their areas of control, so they should be prepared for risks & consequences of those risks.
Note: In this theory below, I'm combining what I learned from Jim Collins & Clayton Christensen with what I learned from Tony Schwartz & Jim Loehr ("The Power of Full Engagement: Managing energy, not time, is the fundamental currency of high performance, health & happiness"). Any inaccuracy in interpreting & combining information from them is my responsibility, not theirs.
If You Leave Me Now
If you bug out now without learning anything more, it's your fault. If you keep reading but learn nothing, please let me know what I should clarify. If you learn a little & optimally apply what you learn, you'll be stronger personally & in business.
It's quite a claim, huh?
To fully benefit from what I wrote in this message, you may need to refer to other things I've written or information sources I've cited.
I wrote about modules & interdependencies in other discussion threads (posts).
The denotation of "rules" I've used below is this - In general, I mean best practices. More specifically I mean - 1) Guides of what to do or not do; 2) How to do what's important when results of those tasks are needed; 3) Providing inputs that have the optimal level of quality.
Good Isn't So Great
Jim Collins spoke & wrote (in "Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don't") about being genetically encoded to do some tasks & the importance of focusing mostly on doing what we can do with excellence (to the point of possibly being the best). Just because we can do a task doesn't mean we do it with excellence.
(Note- This isn't an excuse to shirk duties you don't like. There are some tasks & situations that only require adequacy. Sometimes good enough is good enough. Rounding up household garbage should be done well, but absolute excellence isn't necessary. So, just take care of the trash & get it over with!)
Example - Sanitizing a small, nonporous object adequately (in a minute) or excellently (in 20 minutes) may get the same level of quality. Quickly wiping a hard plastic toy with alcohol requires less time, effort & risk than scrubbing the same toy with hydrochloric acid.
The Right Person For The Right Job
Some people are somewhat athletic & others are gifted. Some are geniuses & others ... not so much.
Star athletes are apt to be paid far more than most geniuses. Yet, if you strive for athletic excellence, but you don't have enough necessary traits, you'll probably waste time & energy. Another way of expressing this is - You'll be more stressed than necessary without increasing your income.
Excessive stress (meaning high levels &/or long term) impairs mental & physical health, plus it distracts people to the point they're less effective & efficient.
Missing potential opportunities by staying in the wrong career field or business is stressful because of the extra struggle. People shouldn't waste their lives trying to be what they're not & never will be. Trying to do something for a while to determine if it's worthwhile is good up to a point.
It's vital for you to know & accept your personal limits. If you know you can safely exceed your past or current achievements & if you know how to do it (including knowing what to change & not change), it may be worthwhile.
Becoming The Right Person For The Right Job
According to Tony Schwartz & Jim Loehr (in "The Power of Full Engagement: Managing energy, not time, is the fundamental currency of high performance, health & happiness"):
Ivan Lendl was far from the most physically gifted tennis player of his era, but for 5 years he was the #1 ranked player in the world. His edge was in the routines that he built. He followed similar routines in every dimension of his life. He developed a rigorous fitness regimen off the court, which included sprints, middle-distance runs, long bicycle rides and strength training. He did regular ballet bar exercises to increase his balance and grace. He adhered to a low-fat, high complex-carbohydrate diet and ate at very specific times. Lendl also practiced a series of daily mental-focus exercises to improve his concentration - and regularly introduced new ones to assure that they remained challenging.
My Interpretation
By using insights from Jim Collins, my quick summary of the main point of the previous paragraph is - Ivan Lendl determined what he should do more or do less & what he shouldn't do (stop doing). Apparently, Lendl knew how & when to get into an optimal groove, plus how & when to get out. He was also sure to not let routines become behavioral ruts.
Positive rituals don't have to be as deep as religious rites. We can mark milestones in our development with rites (rites of passages). We need to be sure we use our rites (milestones) as marks of progress & not ultimate goals. Staying too long at a milestone would be wrong.
Please remember - Two (or any number) of wrongs don't make a rite.
Sometimes persistence is a way to maintain homeostasis & avoid undue stress.
Persistence could be doing the same things in the same ways in the same situations. Since persistence seems like such a great trait, it's easy to figure we're doing the right things & not doing the wrong things because we're stubbornly showing our fortitude.
Jim Collins (Good to Great) advises people to make & use Stop Doing Lists to increase progress.
It's best for us to reduce activities & focus on actions 1) we can do well (possibly better than most) & 2) that will produce the most necessary progress at optimal times.
Jay Abraham has also advised focusing on what we can do to create maximum value. This focused activity is apt to be what we're specifically paid to do while other team members do what they do best.
Positive rituals, beneficial habits & subconscious routines are like modules. These behavioral modules are tasks we do effectively & efficiently without constant conscious attention. Conscious attention often requires more energy than subconscious attention.
When our conscious minds have standardized tasks to the point there's little or no theory or unknown elements, our subconscious minds can do those tasks. When rules are established, predictable results (knowing what to expect) are more likely. This makes it easier for people (trainees) who have less education &/or training to produce the same quality results only "experts" (trainers) could do.
In effect, our conscious minds are trainers & our subconscious minds are trainees.
These behavioral/action oriented modules may not fully fit every situation, but they can be adjusted.
Like using specific sized wrenches for many repairs, sometimes it's hard to anticipate every nut & bolt. Instead of having to use extra time & energy to look for a set of wrenches to fit a variety of nuts & bolts, using an adjustable wrench can be helpful.
Yet, having only adjustable wrenches would mean a person would have to make a lot of adjustments. Plus, adjustable wrenches tend to be bigger than nonadjustable wrenches. Adjustable wrenches won't fit into small spaces as well as other wrenches. Using wrenches that are bigger than necessary tends to be cumbersome.
Our routines should fit our circumstances & produce results that are worth as much as or more than the resources we expend.
Depending on results we need, adapting routines to various situations may be less stressful & more productive than developing new actions for each circumstance. Yet, we need to determine how much effort will be necessary to adjust our methods compared to value we're apt to produce.
In effect, new (unfamiliar) situations are interdependencies. Interdependencies tend to be less stable than modules. If we have a day full of interdependencies, we'll feel stressed.
Positive rituals, beneficial habits & subconscious routines are like modules since they're more stable than unfamiliar actions. If everything we deal with is exactly the same, the predictability may be comforting at first (but stressful later). If rituals are all we ever do, we won't learn much.
I'm not advocating being a masochist & creating or searching for stress. Stress seems to find us too often. Creating stress just for variety can be detrimental.
A way of creating variety & working to reduce stress is simulating potential scenarios & determining how to deal with those possible situations. That would be more productive than taking unnecessary risks just to avoid boredom.
Thank you for using my blog. Please let me know if I should clarify anything.
Copyright 2013 Dennis S. Vogel All rights reserved.
When you compete against big businesses with big budgets you need powerful marketing strategies & tactics. You'll find them here-
https://thriving-small-businesses.blogspot.com/
http://www.voy.com/31049/
No comments:
Post a Comment