
from Microsoft – TechCrunch https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/30/ai-hype-has-peaked-so-whats-next/?ncid=rss
If you gear up, put yourself on high alert and draw a line in the sand, it's likely you'll find the enemy you seek.
On the other hand, expecting that the next person you meet will be as open to possibility as you are might just make it happen.
Part of his power comes from the shadows.
We hear his voice, we know it by heart. He announces his presence with a rumble and he runs away with a wisp of smoke.
But again and again, we resist looking him in the eye, fearful of how powerful he is. We're afraid that like the gorgon, he will turn us to stone. (I'm using the male pronoun, but the critic is a she just as often).
He's living right next to our soft spot, the (very) sore place where we store our shame, our insufficiency, our fraudulent nature. And he knows all about it, and pokes us there again and again.
As Steve Chapman points out in his generous TEDx talk, it doesn't have to be this way. We can use the critic as a compass, as a way to know if we're headed in the right direction.
Pema Chödrön tells the story of inviting the critic to sit for tea. To welcome him instead of running.
It's not comfortable, but is there any other way? The sore spot is unprotectable. The critic only disappears when we cease to matter. They go together.
We can dance with him, talk with him, welcome him along for a long, boring car ride. Suddenly, he's not so dangerous. Sort of banal, actually.
There is no battle to win, because there is no battle. The critic isn't nearly as powerful as you are, not if you are willing to look him in the eye.
I’m currently reading Scott Brinker’s book Hacking Marketing: Agile Practices to Make Marketing Smarter, Faster, and More Innovative (awesome book – look for a much more complete review here soon) and came across a line in Chapter 7 that says “Be pragmatic, not dogmatic.”
This really spoke to me.
One of the things I dislike about many business books is that they try to create dogma and that readers should follow their ‘recipe’ and you’re business will be ‘great’. Much like Isaac Sacolick’s Driving Digital (see my review of Isaac’s book here), Scott doesn’t do that with his book…instead he’s telling people to stop trying to find a recipe that other companies have used for success and start from scratch (with lessons learned from others of course).
One of the most damaging routes a company can take is trying to mimic another. I’ve been in meetings listening to product managers describe their product roadmap that contains 99% ‘me too’ features to keep up with their competitors. When I ask about innovation, I get blank stares. These folks are stuck in the dogma of their industry and their organization. They are focused on imitation rather than innovation.
That’s where being pragmatic comes into play. Sure…there may be features that you must have to compete in your vertical/industry but if you’re entire roadmap is focused on imitation, its time to take a step back and rethink your approach, your investment and your business. Rather than mimic everything others are doing (e.g., being dogmatic), take a the pragmatic approach. Take a look at what your competitors are doing, what your clients want, what you can deliver and what best fits into your organization’s long-term goals and then do that.
Another aspect of pragmatic vs dogmatic that I see often is that of project management. How many times have you heard (or said!) “well…we need to build a gantt chart before the project can start” or “that’s not how the PMBOK” says to do it or ‘Scrum requires us to do X, Y and Z in that order.” That’s dogmatic. Not every project requires a gantt chart or a daily 15min standup meeting. Not every organization can (or should) follow the dogma of project management methods. The most successful project managers out there are those that know when to follow guidelines and when to deviate from said guidelines.
So…be pragmatic, not dogmatic. Thanks for the quote Scott.
A $30,000 software package is actually $3,000 worth of software plus $27,000 worth of meetings.
And most clients are bad at meetings. As a result, so are many video developers, freelance writers, conference organizers, architects and lawyers.
If you're a provider, the analysis is simple: How much faster, easier and better-constructed would your work be if you began the work with all the meetings already done, with the spec confirmed, with the parameters clear?
Well, if that's what you need, build it on purpose.
The biggest difference between great work and pretty-good work are the meetings that accompanied it.
The crisp meeting is one of a series. It's driven by purpose and intent. It's guided by questions:
Who should be in the room?
What's the advance preparation we ought to engage in? (at least an hour for every meeting that's worth holding).
What's the budget?
What's the deadline?
What does the reporting cycle look like--dates and content and responsibilities?
Who is the decision maker on each element of the work?
What's the model--what does a successful solution look like?
Who can say no, who can change the spec, who can adjust the budget?
When things go wrong, what's our approach to fixing them?
What constitutes an emergency, and what is the cost (in time, effort and quality) of stopping work on the project to deal with the emergency instead?
Is everyone in the room enrolled in the same project, or is part of the project to persuade the nay-sayers?
If it's not going to be a crisp meeting, the professional is well-advised to not even attend.
It's a disappointing waste of time, resources and talent to spend money to work on a problem that actually should be a conversation first.