Communication Insanity

Image

The quantity of poor communication flowing from organizations is shocking. Examples include presentations laced with attention destroying bullet slides, literature overwhelmingly populated with stand alone facts, and trade show booths emulating a department store display window replete with human manikins.

These examples are shocking for two reasons. First, they’re used repeatedly even though they don’t work. Second, they demonstrate a total ignorance of what communication is and how it works.

Communication is what the mind makes out of the messages received through the senses. This activity is unyielding and unconnected to the intention’s of the sender. In fact, sender intention’s almost always lack the compulsory ingredient of effective communication — appeal to emotion.

Emotion is potential behavior that exists in the mind. Emotion is evoked by some of the messages that come through the senses. Messages that evoke emotions are communication. Messages that do not evoke emotions are noise. This process occurs inside the mind and is not, in any way, respectful of sender intention(s). Here are some examples…

When driving while talking with a companion, it’s your emotional self that continuously monitors the traffic around you, and signals you to stop talking and pay attention when the situation demands deliberate concentration.

You’re probably not aware that you stop talking when exercising intense concentration. In all probability your companion, experiencing the same emotion as you, will also stop talking. Steering clear of an automobile accident is as much about emotion as it is about turning a wheel and stepping on a pedal.

Think back to the last “car wreck” of a presentation you attended. The chances are many to one that the presentation was laden with bullet slides. What is your first response to such a presentation? Do you serenely get on with the business of reading and evaluating each bullet, or are you overcome with remembrances of the many less than enthusiastic moments spent while a presenter plodded one by one through a seemingly never ending list of bullets?

Even if you suppressed your initial feeling of dismay, and began reading each bullet, another feeling will soon take hold. Namely the feeling of frustration as the presenter begins discussing the bullet you read moments before. Your frustration is naturally directed at the presenter whose conduct indicates either indifference to, or ignorance of, the fact that audience members read considerably faster than presenters speak.

The relevant, and sad, point to be made here is that truly great bullet slide material is incapable of changing the negative feelings inherent to a bullet slide presentation. That’s because all communication is evaluated by our emotional self before our logical self. This fact is put most succinctly and convincingly by award-winning neuroscientist Antonio Damasio

“The human mind is not a thinking machine, it is a feeling machine that thinks.”

Assume it’s 2:00 AM and foggy. You’re walking alone to your car located at the far end of a dimly lit, almost empty, parking garage. Suddenly you hear an unfamiliar and unexpected noise. What do you do first? Do you serenely decide to survey the environment, looking to collect data for analysis of the situation, or do you get a chill down your spine?

Let’s change the environment from a parking garage to a jungle. You’re walking through a jungle when you become aware of a rustling in the brush beside you. Is that rustling the wind or a predator? What do your emotions tell you to do? If you run, you may be wrong, but you will survive. If you ignore your emotions and decide it’s the wind and you’re wrong, you’re lunch.

Be it jungle or garage your response to an unknown sound is exactly the same, even though each of those environments is vastly different. The reason your response is the same is because of emotion. Emotion initiates and dominates almost all communication.

Why then, with such abundant evidence, do communicators continue to do the wrong thing? Such behavior is reminiscent of Albert Einstein’s famous definition, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Consider the case of sales literature dominated by stand-alone claims and facts. If claims and facts, standing alone, could convince a prospect to buy, the seller would need only to send prospects a list of facts and wait for orders. Everyone knows that doesn’t work, but materials continue to be created and distributed in a like manner.

Almost everyone has heard the saying, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.” And yet, trade show literature is replete with phrases like, “The Superior Solution For…” The only response that phrase brings about is a judgement of being the same as all other claimants of “Superior Solutions.” Can there be a worse first impression than the judgement of being the same as others?

Such a judgement is not only a terrible first impression, it’s very likely the last impression ever to be made. Indeed the saying — “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.” — is wrong. You’ll never make any kind of impression if the first one doesn’t connect emotionally!

Presentations made for the purpose of recruiting talent usually begin with a “This Is Who We Are” slide. Typically the presentation opens with an illustration of an organization chart and words such as, “XYZ, The Leading Supplier Of…” The obvious intent is to convince recruits they are being presented to by a successful organization. But the claim, “The Leading Supplier Of…,” is devoid of anything that connects emotionally.

Now consider a slide depicting enthusiastic people at work with these words, “Successful Organizations Don’t Have To Recruit Talent, They Attract It.”

That message summons a powerful emotion. First, it’s true. Talent flocks to success. Second, a boisterous message stimulates an emotional response which causes an audience to go into challenge mode. That’s exactly what a talented presenter wants, a well kindled audience, intently listening, and thereby providing the presenter with the ideal opportunity to make his or her case. That sort of presentation environment is many times preferable to one in which the audience is sitting in a coma-like stupor thinking, “Here we go again, another ‘Leading Supplier Of’ company.”

There has to be a reason or two as to why flawed communication practices continue. In the simplest case, it is a forlorn admission of not knowing what else to do. That’s regrettable, but honest.

Less honest, but with a very strong emotional appeal, is the “safety in numbers” scheme. The “safety in numbers” scheme is an attempt to hedge against failure’s comeuppance. The idea is that enactment of historically successful procedures will, first and foremost, provide cover if the future does not work out as the past suggests. Demographic and psychographic research, case studies, and “big data” analysis all provide this type of cover.

But the very alluring feeling of security provided by a “safety in numbers” scheme is wholly different from success. The fact that a large number of organizations recruit by way of “Leading Supplier Of” claims, and the fact that a large number of presenters use bullet slides, means only that a large number of recruitment programs, and a large number of presenters fail. Is there any real safety in numbers when the numbers represent failure?

The truth is that historical procedures are no more a guarantor of future success then is historical failure prevention against future failure. To say it directly, it’s not what happens in history that creates success, it what happens inside the mind.

The only thing focus groups, case studies, or “big data” research can do is summarize what came before. They cannot foretell what is possible in the future. Future possibilities can only be revealed by understanding the human mind as defined in the fields of cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and biology.

“The human mind is not a thinking machine, it is a feeling machine that thinks.” The application of Antonio Damasio’s pronouncement is universal and obviously applies to more than the examples of communication insanity this brief article provides. It applies wherever and whenever it is desired to have an individual, group, or populace choose a desired action.

There is no mystery involved in creating successful products, making sales, getting votes, raising funds, or motivating a specific intended action within another. The mystery is why so many continue to believe that success can result by employing insane communication practices.

Communication Insanity
September 10, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: D5EABFB2(R06) • Feb 15, 2014
Photo © SM Web – Fotolia.com

Download
Communication Insanity (PDF)

Related
Article – Belief In Branding
Article – Bullet Insanity
Article – Impact
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – Persuasive Resolutions
Article – Sales Collateral Isn't
Article – Seeing Red

Changing The Game

Image

A dominant belief among business/product developers, candidates, advertisers, and influencers of all sorts, is that success is dependent upon certain time-honored procedures. Among the most destructive of these is the belief that success depends upon identifying, segmenting, and targeting future behavior as suggested by the analysis of data representing past behavior.

Research and analysis of this sort is usually followed by application of the “four Ps” — the notion that a “target” will behave favorably when offered a Product that is Promoted at a Place and Price in line with research enlightened calculations.

When success does not flow as predicted, fault is routinely placed on the quantity or quality of data, or on the skill of those who analyzed the data, or on those who enacted the procedures suggested by the data.

Rarely, if ever, is the belief itself questioned. Until now. The belief that success is dependent upon the application of procedures, as suggested by data analysis of past behavior, is wrong.

At its essence, data is distinct and disconnected from the behavior it represents. To put it plainly, behavior is as behavior does, not as it has done. The ability to create success does not come from analyzing the past, it comes from knowing what is possible in the future. The talent to act upon this fact separates a game changer from a marketer.

A marketer administers historical procedures to existing products. A game changer creates success where none exists. A marketer finds comfort in the past. A game changer greets the past with antipathy because he or she knows that past behavior cannot divine what is possible in the future.

To create success, data analysis of past behavior must be replaced with something forceful enough to inform messages, products, services, candidates, and causes with an understanding of what is possible in the future. This is the purpose of Customer DNA, which at its essence is principled with a single idea: the cause of behavior is found inside the mind. That is why we say, “It is better to know how people think than to know what people have thought!”

And how do people think? Without exception all people from every culture (1) create a set of convictions to make sense of their “world,” (2) use their convictions as filters to disqualify incoming messages, products, services, candidates, and causes that are discordant to their existing convictions, (3) seek out and join with others that hold convictions similar to their own.

Convictions are behavior’s doorways. Game changers parlay with them by creating messages, products, candidates, and causes that can pass through and rearrange existing convictions in a way that motivates new behavior. That talent ennobles the game changer above the marketer.

Steve Jobs believed that the historically based arguments of others were wrong and that convergence, not divergence, would be the future of the mobile phone. Some of the best marketing minds in the industry bet against the iPhone because it stood in stark contrast to what came before. (Why the iPhone Will Fail)

But Steve Jobs was a game changer. To Jobs the past had no bearing on the future success of the mobile phone. Jobs understood that the iPhone would provide people with the comfort of continuous connection (a deeply held conviction) while coincidentally providing the means to make a phone call.

In 2007 Howard Schultz told a TV audience that he had no idea how many or what class of people would want to visit a Starbucks store. He went on to say that traditional processes like advertising and ubiquitous distribution were not major contributors to Starbuck’s success. (C-Span Global Innovation Video – Watch the 4 minute segment beginning at minute 7:00 and ending at 11:10)

What Schultz did know is that human connection is a conviction that can be experienced through the basic and invariable meaning of the coffee break. Until Starbucks, there was no place to have a coffee break other than at work or at home. Hence there were no historical data upon which to argue for the creation of such a place.

However, there was (and is) an understanding by Howard Schultz of how people think. That’s why Schultz is famous for saying, “We’re not in the coffee business serving people but we’re in the people business serving coffee.”

Game changers create success when marketers cannot because game changers elevate the possibilities of the future above the certainty of the past. The simple truth is that data collection and data analysis are forceful only when they reveal convictions. Any attempt at creating success that does not accept and comply with this fact is fated for a future of failure.

Changing The Game
August 30, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 0049EFCD(R03) • Feb 13, 2014
Photo © Maksym Protsenko – Fotolia.com

Download
Changing The Game (PDF)

Related
Article – Belief In Branding
Article – Impact
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – On Replication
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Clearly
Article – Seeing Red
Article – Success Is Built On Frameworks, Not Rules
Article – Talent

On Replication

Image

If your company ceased to exist would your customer’s desires go unanswered? For many the answer is, “My customer’s desires would go unanswered only until they walked down the street to the next company that offers what I offer.” There is a one word description as to why this is so — replication.

Replication refers to the practice of creating or developing a product, service, candidate, or cause that is substantially similar to that which currently exist. Unfortunately most organizations, most of the time, follow the practice of replication. This is sad because replication always leads to a Marketplace Of Abundance; a marketplace in which there are more products, services, candidates, and causes than people need, want, or care to consider.

The Marketplace Of Abundance is almost always corrosive even though most replicated products extend the merit of their original counterparts. Why? Because replication extends merit at the expense of customer loyalty and price. There is little rational for expecting loyalty in an environment that satisfies desires simply by walking down the street. As for price…

When all is said and done, the survival of an organization is determined by the attention paid to this short four-word question, “How much is it?”

Sellers pay primary attention to the first two words of the question, the “how much” part, because they assume price is the primary concern of customers. But that is not the case. The primary concern of customers is the determination of merit, not the discovery of price. The difference between the two is important.

Merit is a personal intrinsic assessment based on an individual’s circumstances and/or state of mind. Price is an expenditure required to obtain a product. The natural order of things in the mind of a customer is to determine merit before considering price.

In the customers mind the question is not, “How much is it?” In the customers mind the question is changed round becoming, “It is how much?” A purchase decision is not primarily determined by the price offered, but rather on the approximation of the offered price to the inceptive merit felt by the customer.

The corrosive effect of replication on price is that it saturates the marketplace with products that are substantially similar to what customers have already evaluated. In the customer’s mind (and in your mind too) an attempt to evaluate differences in merit between substantially similar products is valueless. In such a situation the only consideration is price. End of story!

One way to resolve this situation is to surrender to replication and create low priced products, promoted with messages designed for high frequency, large reach delivery systems. That is a valid business tactic that works for some folks, some times. But there is a catch. Replication is a paint by numbers exercise that perpetuates a repeating and corrosive cycle of competition, followed by price erosion, followed by consolidation. This cycle can be marginally successful for one or two survivors. For most it’s an agonizing existence. Fortunately, there’s a better way.

The natural order of things in the mind of a customer is to determine merit before considering price. The key to avoiding the pitfalls of replication is to realize that customers deem as meritorious those products, services, candidates, and causes that connect on a personal intrinsic level. This deeply personal, and mostly emotional, evaluation provides the foundation for dealing with replication. To avoid replication, products and their attendant messages must connect to the personal, intrinsic determination of merit that customers are first and foremost looking to satisfy. ()

We must emphasize the importance of messaging at this point. A product has very little chance at success if the amount of time, talent, and money devoted to creating impactful messages — messages that connect to the customer’s personal and intrinsic determination of merit — does not at least equal the amount of time, talent, and money devoted to creating the product. That may be tough to accept, but it’s the truth!

Creating impactful messages isn’t easy (although it isn’t as hard as shaving an additional 1% off the price of a replicated product quarter over quarter) but it is required to exit the low cost seller’s game. Happily, once a way is found to make the emotional connection, to create and promote a product in a way that resonates with the buyer’s intrinsic assignment of worth, there will be a line of customers out the door. ()

There are numerous examples to support this claim. The most dramatic emerge from new organizations with no customers that become immensely successful in the face of existing suppliers with a huge resource advantage. Two of the more familiar are McDonalds, that grew to replace White Castle, and Starbucks, that captured a marketplace long dominated by such names as Maxwell House, Folgers, et al.

As we write this article, Apple’s iPad is in high demand everywhere it is sold, including Wal-Mart, where it sells for the same price as it does everywhere else. Interestingly, Apple enjoys a market capitalization of 565 billion dollars while Wal-Mart has a market cap of 247 billion. Which company faces the bigger challenge: Apple, with the task of ensuring their future products continue to connect emotionally; or Wal-Mart, who must continue to find a way to wring another 1% out of the cost of groceries?

The answer lies in recognizing that replication is unsustainable. At some point there will be no more price reduction or logistic efficiency possible. Conversely, the upper limits of developing products and messages capable of strong intrinsic connection, and high profit margins, are boundless.

On Replication
July 20, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 005BC2F0(R06) • Jan 27, 2014
Photo © SM Web – Fotolia.com

Download
On Replication (PDF)

Related
Article – Belief In Branding
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Impact
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – Sales Collateral Isn't
Article – Talent
Article – The Marketplace Of Abundance

The Marketplace of Abundance

Image

There was a time when customers purchased a new product for the explicit purpose of determining merit. Those days are gone. Customers no longer pay attention to products, services, candidates, or causes because they are new.

The effect of this change on product introductions is calamitous. Here’s how Martin Lindström described it in his New York Times best selling book, Buyology.

“In 2005, corporations spent more than $7.3 billion on market research in the United States alone. In 2007, that figure rose to $12 billion. And that doesn’t even include the additional expenses involved in marketing an actual product – the packaging and the displays, TV commercials, online banner ads, celebrity endorsements, and billboards – which carry a $117 billion annual price tag in America alone. But if these strategies still work, then why do eight out of ten new product launches fail within the first three months?”

The answer to Lindström’s question is abundance. A Marketplace Of Abundance exists today, and it requires appropriate strategies.

Abundance means there are more meritorious products, services, candidates, and causes than people need, want, or care to consider. The reason abundance exists is because most new products, services, candidates, and causes are substantially similar versions of those which already exist. This trait is a direct result of the process we call replication.

Replication is a paint by numbers attempt to institutionalize success. It assumes success can be duplicated or extended by transferring the merit of an existing product into a new product.

Regrettably, pre-existing merit lacks the impact necessary to capture or shift attention from one product to another. From the public’s perspective (and from your perspective too) their is no reason to pay attention to a new product, service, candidate, or cause that is substantially similar to one already in existence.

This is not to say merit doesn’t count. Merit does count, and products without merit are that much less likely to succeed. But merit is not enough to persuade customers to try new products and neither (according to Lindström) is $117 billion dollars worth of marketing.

One reason merit and money cannot stem an 80% failure rate is that a replicated product cannot be demonstrated to be the first of its kind. Therefore, promoting a replicated product is restricted to differentiation. Words and phrases like “better,” “improved,” “faster acting,” “longer lasting,” and “tastes better” are ubiquitous to this style of promotion.

Sadly, in The Marketplace Of Abundance there are more meritorious, substantially similar products, services, candidates, and causes than people need, want, or care to differentiate. This condition cannot be circumvented by adding to it. It makes one think that Albert Einstein had The Marketplace Of Abundance in mind when he famously defined insanity as, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Data collection and analysis won’t stop the insanity either. The purpose of data collection is to quantize behavior and present such as fact(s) suitable for analysis. The purpose of data analysis is to align (quantized behavior) facts in such a way as to reveal insight about future behavior.

It is true that properly aligned facts tend to interpret themselves. But it’s equally true that facts can only be properly aligned after the behavior they represent has occurred. Put bluntly, behavior is as behavior does, not as it has done. If it was the other way round, if behavior could be determined before it occurred, there would be no innovation, no creativity, and no change! Of course change happens…

As we write this article Nokia & Blackberry (both data rich companies) are loosing marketshare to the iPhone at an alarming rate.

Netflix has just begun to recover market capitalization lost as a result of a “big data” driven decision to split their DVD rental business from their video streaming business.

And JC Penny has done away with both their Sales and their sales as a result of a newly installed data driven marketing program. (At least JC Penny’s commercials have succeeded in elevating Ellen DeGeneres’ celebrity.)

Expensive marketing campaigns and extensive data analysis cannot circumvent The Marketplace Of Abundance. To do so, replication must be replaced with the ability to comprehend the basic and invariable meaning of something before it becomes apparent to others. This requires the talent of an Unusual Mind.

George Ballas put his Unusual Mind to use when he came up with the Weed Eater. We did too when we created the Clear Vue mail sorter system.

Happily, Unusual Mind talent can be developed. That’s good because it will become increasingly indispensable as ever more costly marketing methods and increased levels of data analyses continue to prove futile.

The Marketplace Of Abundance
June 20, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 00544504(R05) • Feb 5, 2014
Photo © soleg – Fotolia.com

Download
The Marketplace Of Abundance (PDF)

Related
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Impact
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – On Replication
Article – Persuasive Resolutions
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Clearly
Article – Steam
Article – The Weed Eater

Seeing Clearly

Image

Alfred North Whitehead was an English mathematician noted for saying, “It requires a very unusual mind to undertake an analysis of the obvious.” Whitehead made this comment in connection to a method of thinking called Analytic Philosophy. The thesis of this method of thinking is that the solution to a problem will become obvious once the basic and invariable meaning of the problem is uncovered. ()

We accept that you might find it strange to find an opening paragraph about analytic philosophy in a Manna Groups article. We believe you will soon see its relevance. We begin with a question from the remittance processing industry. What is the basic and invariable function of mail sorter bins?

A word of caution, while there is no doubt that the sorting of mail is a necessary duty of mail sorter bins, you should reconsider if you think the basic and invariable function of mail sorter bins is to sort mail.

Before we reveal the answer please allow us to offer a little background.

For years, the authors of this article were members of an ownership team that operated a business developing and selling products exclusively to the transaction processing industry. The strategy behind all product development in that organization was to uncover the basic and invariable function of the products we brought to market. In short, the success of the organization was dependent upon the talent to find answers to questions just like the one posed above. What is the basic and invariable function of a mail sorter?

Our answer to that question led to the introduction of a product that changed the remittance processing industry. This product’s merit was so obvious that it literally “sold itself,” even to remittance centers that already had mail sorter bins.

Our answer: the basic and invariable function of a mail sorter is to be able to see the mail once it has been sorted. The idea that sorting mail is trivial compared to the significance of seeing mail after it has been sorted, literally made our next step clear.

Never loose an envelope again with the Clear Vue mail sorter system!

We developed a transparent mail sorter constructed from the material used at ice hockey rinks. We called it the Clear Vue mail sorter system. Our tag line for promoting the product, “Never loose an envelope again with the Clear Vue mail sorter system!”

The success of the Clear Vue was instant and widespread. After a single installation, articles about, and pictures of, the product appeared in trade magazines. Consultants mentioned the product to their customers, and those customers spread the word to others. In short, the product went viral.

In one case insurance rates were lowered because footstools were no longer needed to see into the bin’s top row. In other cases the product’s glistening appearance became a “high tech” selling point for a process that was traditionally seen as otherwise. In every case, visibility lowered the chance of missing processing deadlines.

Now you see why we elected to begin this article with Whitehead’s quote. It concisely reveals the foundation of successful product development. Basic and invariable function becomes apparent once (and only if) one undertakes to analyze the obvious.

Nowadays it seems trivially apparent that the basic and invariable function of a mail sorter is to see mail once it has been sorted. Of course the obvious always seems trivial after the fact. An important lesson is that until the obvious is analyzed, basic and invariable meaning will not be apparent, regardless of how trivial it becomes after the fact.

Another important lesson is the effect analyzing the obvious has on the competition. Imagine the feeling a CEO of a metal or wooden mail bin company must have had the day after the Clear Vue was released.

The story of the Clear Vue mail sorter (just like the Weed Eater story) stands in direct opposition to the type of analyses usually undertaken during the product development process. Metrics like estimated sales volume, target market(s) growth forecasts, market penetration, etc., are incapable of measuring whether existing products have made the obvious apparent.

Metrics have a part to play in the product development process, but it’s a subordinate part. Until basic and invariable meaning has been made apparent, no other data matters. After basic and invariable meaning has been made apparent, few, if any, data are required.

We can tell you with absolute certainty that every remittance processing center that purchased a Clear Vue mail sorter system had a solution already in place. Or to put it in typical marketing speak, Clear Vue was successfully sold into a market that was 100% penetrated. It was a total repeat of the situation that existed the day before the Weed Eater went on sale.

Until the obvious is analyzed there is no calculus capable of measuring market potential. And there is no limit to the potential success of newly developed products that make the obvious apparent, particularly when they stand in contrast to existing products which have not.

Seeing Clearly
June 5, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 005B0C6E(R03) • Jan 29, 2014
Photo © alphaspirit – Fotolia.com

Download
Seeing Clearly (PDF)

Related
Article – An Unusual Mind Ghost Story
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Marketing's Greatest Conviction
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Red
Article – The Invention Of The Birthday Machine
Article – The Most Important Resource
Article – The Weed Eater

Talent

Image

Building an organization is not rocket science, but it’s also not a piece of cake. It begins by determining and acquiring essential resources.

Interestingly, when one examines the resources of an organization, any organization, all organizations, and reduces those resources down to their fundamental irreducible parts, it becomes evident that an organization has only three resources: time, money, and talent. In the final analysis, the successful pursuit of any desired outcome is dependent upon time, money, and talent.

Time is abundant and given to us free of charge. We don’t have to search for it because it’s what we have as a result of being alive. Of course what we do with “our time” is up to us.

Money is slightly more scarce than time, but not by much. Money at rest is money in decline, an untenable predicament. All that an organization must do to receive money is to convince an investor the money will be returned. The only way an organization can make that argument is demonstrate it has the third and scarcest resource — talent.

Talent is an autonomous measure of natural ability. It exists independently of character, intelligence, and discipline. That’s not to say character, intelligence, and discipline are unimportant. They are important. But character, intelligence, and discipline are not proxies for talent and they will not lead to talent’s creation; although they occasionally lead to the discovery and development of talent.

We have all heard that anything is achievable so long as one works at it long enough. The idea that talent inevitably flows from the intelligent, disciplined effort of persons with enough character to work at it, is absolutely wrong. It is common for highly intelligent, rigidly disciplined persons to produce results not much different from those whose efforts are sparse by comparison. The reason is that knowledge afforded by effort is not interchangeable with talent. This disconcerting truth is easier to grasp when presented in familiar terms.

Imagine a nascent wanna-be Nolan Ryan looking for a book, course of study, or list of instructions entitled, How To Throw A 100 Mile An Hour Fastball. In business these kinds of things might take the forms of case studies or “How To” sales and management books.

The idea that the next Nolan Ryan could be produced by studying a book is comical. Everyone who has ever thrown a baseball knows you either have the talent to throw hard or you don’t. It doesn’t matter how much knowledge you accumulate, or how much you throw, without talent you will never throw a 100 mile an hour fastball — end of story!

This doesn’t mean everyone capable of throwing hard will develop the ability to throw a 100 mile an hour fastball. It usually takes development to turn raw talent into top performance. What it does mean is that no amount of coaching or training will turn an untalented individual into the next Nolan Ryan. You might get to the majors based on other pitching skills, but no amount of coaching or training is going to make you the next Nolan Ryan if you don’t have the talent to throw hard.

Organizational success is no different. In order to succeed an organization must posses the requisite talent. Stated plainly, an organization deficient in talent should no more anticipate success than an individual who is unable to throw hard should expect to become the next Nolan Ryan.

Nothing speaks more certainly about an organization’s potential for success than recognition of talent as the scarcest of all resources and management of talent as the scarcest of all organizational skills. Talent, and the environment in which it is managed, define the nature and nurture of all organizations. While it is possible to identify and analyze these elements, it is wrong to assume that such knowledge will provide a means to their inheritance.

Talent
May 14, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 0055BC4B(R05) • Jan 24, 2014
Photo © SM Web – Fotolia.com

Download
Talent (PDF)
Broadcasting Book (PDF)

Related
Article – Changing The Game
Article – Hut, Hut … Hut
Article – Success Is Built On Frameworks, Not Rules
Article – The Most Important Resource

The Weed Eater

Image

Here’s a chance to get some exercise. Take a moment and stick either arm out directly in front of you. Now open your hand palm down and extend your fingers as far as they will go. Make a really tight fist and release it. Again, make a tight fist and release. Again, make a tight fist and release. Now do it 10 times fast.

That hurts! Yet, for many years, that exact motion was required to work the bladed trimmers used to trim weeds and grass.

Customers went to manufacturers and asked, “Can’t you do something about this?” Manufacturers said, “Yes, we can make a better bladed clipper.” They did so by adding a motor and battery.

Customers said, “Gee that’s better, but now it’s heavy and hurts my shoulder. Can’t you do something about this?” Manufacturers said, “Yes we can make a better bladed clipper.” They added wheels.

Customers said, “That is superb, but you see it hurts my back to bend over. Can’t you do something about this?” Manufacturers said, “Yes we can make a better bladed clipper.” They added a long stick handle!

Then, 41 years ago, a real estate salesman named George Ballas changed the game. Ballas was watching his car go thru a car-wash in Houston Texas and wondered if the revolving brushes could be made to cut grass and weeds. He got in his cleaned car, drove home, and invented the Weed Eater. A year later, in 1972, Weed Eater, Inc. came into being.

In its first year Weed Eater, Inc. had net sales of $560,000 per year. In 1974 the figure was $7,791,000. In 1975 it was $14,305,000. In 1976 it was $41,000,000. In 1977 it was $80,000,000.

That’s impressive growth, but it’s only half the story. The other half, and maybe it’s 51%, is what happened to the other guys. How would you like to have been CEO of a company who’s warehouse was full of bladed trimmers the day after (almost literally the day after) the Weed Eater was invented?

The invention of the Weed Eater is a stunning example of the difference between intelligent minds and unusual minds.

Intelligence is widely accepted as a measure of one’s ability to store, recall, and process data. Store and recall processing is impressive. We reward it in schools and on game shows. But store and recall processing is limited by an undeniable fact. The only data that can be stored, recalled, and processed is data that already exists.

Store and recall processing is dependent upon what came before. It’s a paint by numbers exercise, the results of which are predestined by the makeup of the data being processed.

So, repeatedly squeezing your hand shut hurts. No problem, here’s a motor and battery. What’s that, a motor and battery are too heavy. No problem, here are some wheels. What’s that, it hurts to bend over. Here, have a stick.

The only way to avoid the restrictive obedience of intelligence is to develop the talent of an Unusual Mind. That’s what George Ballas had going for him, and it’s why Ballas did what the intelligent mind was restricted from doing. Ballas changed the game! Let us make this point perfectly clear, until you can change the game you’re destined to play by somebody else’s rules.

A bladed trimmer with a stick, wheels, motor, and battery isn’t a change of what came before, it’s a replication of what came before. It couldn’t be anything else, because each step along the way was restricted by intelligence. And intelligence is, by definition, rooted in the past?

Developing an Unusual Mind requires dissociation from the past. The unconditional first step is to avoid asking, “What process do I recall to deal with the situation at hand?” Unusual Minds ask a different question, “What is the basic and invariable meaning of the topic at hand?”

Before the Weed Eater came along manufacturers were asking, “What process(es) exist that will result in a better bladed trimmer?” George Ballas asked a different question, a basic and invariable question, “What’s a better way to trim weeds and grass?”

There is no evidence indicating if George Ballas was more or less intelligent than those who managed the bladed trimmer industry. In truth, intelligence had very little to do with the invention of the Weed Eater. The Weed Eater’s invention was the result of an Unusual Mind — of the talent to reveal basic and invariable meaning.

Forty years ago this spring George Ballas founded Weed Eater, Inc. Ballas has stood as a prime example of the game changing power of an Unusual Mind for each of the 40 springs since.

The Weed Eater
April 15, 2012 by Bob Manna & Matt Manna
Version: 004FCA66(R07) • Feb 21, 2014
Photo © Horticulture – Fotolia.com

Download
The Weed Eater (MOV)
The Weed Eater (PDF)

Related
Article – An Unusual Mind Ghost Story
Article – Changing The Game
Article – On Replication
Article – Projection vs. Prediction
Article – Seeing Clearly
Article – Success Is Built On Frameworks, Not Rules