Sitting on a Continental flight in seat 21D on a flight from Austin, TX to Newark, NJ and I thought I would write a post (maybe this would be better classified as a rant or a stream of consciousness) on change and vision. I realize that this is more of a culmination of random thoughts than anything else but what the heck I’m bored, well not rally bored but need a break from work. Over the past few weeks I have been working relentlessly on powerpoint presentations and writing a lot while I am flying so I thought I would use the last hour or so of this flight to dump a bunch of random thoughts onto paper. Clear some room in my brain for new ideas 🙂

As human beings it is very difficult to step outside our skin and change our perspective. This inability to readily change our perspective in my opinion is the key contributor to our resistance to change and our inability to create a generally acceptable vision. The thought that we may be removed from a comfort zone where we are no longer the authority and forced into the unknown can be frightening. A few years ago (more like 10 years ago) a good friend of mine introduced me to a concept called “Remote Viewing”. “Remote Viewing” is a technique employed and taught by the CIA as a way to visualize things through the eyes of another person (from the CIA’s perspective this would be the enemy). I was blown away and for years I believed that I could learn “Remote Viewing” and it would hold the key to my success in life, the ability to fully commit to someone else’s perspective, to the degree that I would see the situation exactly as they would. I could then take this knowledge and apply it to the mission of morphing their perspective. The ability to do this would provide me the unfair advantage I was looking for. Well needless to say I don’t think anyone has to worry I have not mastered “Remote Viewing” but then again if I had would I tell you 🙂

Interestingly enough as an outgrowth to remote viewing I became interested in something called Neuro-linguistic programming. NLP is a little bit more grounded than Remote Viewing. I researched NLP and purchased and read 4 books on the topic. Once you read the concept you will understand why it was so intriguing to me and for those of you who know me it should be even more evident why I would be so captivated by the concept. My wife can attest to the fact that I am definitely not the life of the party with my philosophical opinions on topics such as “Remote Viewing”, NLP and other bizarre topic like the Bible Code. As a matter of fact years ago she put moratorium on such topics in public settings, thus I am forced to write about them on my blog 🙂

The term “Neuro-linguistic programming” is pretty self explanatory. It is is a set of techniques, axioms and beliefs most often leveraged for personal development. It is is rooted in the study of body language and language patterns. The techniques are predicated upon the principle that all behaviors (whether excellent or dysfunctional) are not random, but have a practically determinable structure. Wow, what an amazing field, the ability to interpret subjective reality. My thought process when I began educating myself on NLP was that I would learn how to morph subjective reality into objective reality.

So I purchased several books on NLP and began to battle through the very dry material in an attempt to learn the techniques and leverage them as a way to get inside my audiences head, understand their subjective reality and create an objective reality aligned with my subjective reality. The ability to lead is firmly rooted in this concept, the creation of a reality that moves people.

What the hell am I talking about, oh yeah…

Why am I writing this? Change is inevitable and our ability to cope and stay grounded is based in our ability to create a subjective reality. The ability to understand and alter the subjective reality of others in my opinion ultimately holds the key to our success. Now the tough part of determining how to do this. My adaptation is a mix that works for me but may not work for others:

1. Defined End-State – Having a clear, defensible definition of the end-state is critical.
2. Vision – Have a vision. The ability to clearly and concisely convey your vision is key. It’s not over once you achieve the end-state. A vision should not be finite. The end-state should be the horizon, once we reach the horizon a new horizon is created.
3. Faith – The only thing that matters is the end-state, while milestones and the measurement of progress are applicable they should not define the map for the journey. Execution of a vision requires a fluid adaptable philosophy executed by individuals with insatiable desire, not individuals with a need to hit milestones. This in my opinion is by far the most difficult aspect of executing against a successful vision. This is not an exact science but rather an art. Often times the painting is meaningless until the last brush stoke is applied to the canvas.
4. Commitment – Stay committed and vigilant. The horizon is distant and will often seem like a mirage, the ability to stay focused on the vision and committed to the destination is paramount.
5. Flexibility – Be flexible, the ability to influence is predicated on the ability to morph and adapt to detours in the road to the end-state.

Finally for those of you who were boy shouts “Be Prepared”…

Ahhhhh…. I feel refreshed!

Once again I read a blog post this morning on Mark Lewis’s blog that I felt compelled to comment on.  Unfortunately EMC has opted to disable the comment function of Mark’s TypePad blog???  What’s the deal with this?  Hopefully someone will realize that comments should be turned on sooner rather than later.

Nonetheless it is nice to see that Mark commenting on the applicability of expert knowledge to great technology.  What a great quote ?Technology is no cure for stupidity.?  I believe that any great solution is built on great technology, expert knowledge (intellectual property) and well honed process.  The ability to apply technology to holistic business strategy is a difficult thing for many organizations to visualize, all to often tactical infrastructure requirements bubble to the top and take president, forcing many organization to abandon strategic vision.  I propose that with the application of expert knowledge tactical problems can be solved and aligned with a strategic vision.  Tactical behavior with a disregard for strategic alignment will continue to make it very difficult for organizations to realize the the maximum potential of many of the technology solutions that they are deploying and implementing.  Ultimately this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Let’s face it – there is ton of parity in the marketplace, the ability to apply expert knowledge to a business problem is now where the solution value lies.  Is there still business value in the bowels of brick and mortar technology or should we be focused on solving business problems and identifying solution providers who provide our organization with the highest probability for success.  The analogy I like to use is if you were to build a brick structure, who provides the most value, the mason, the quarry, the kiln process, etc…?  Most of us discount the value of the quarry and kiln process as a brick is a brick, the expert knowledge of the mason is more often subject to heavy scrutiny because the success of the project relies on the mason.  The mason holds the knowledge and the consumer is entrusting the expert to source the right brick for the job, apply their expert knowledge and compete the project to specifications,  on time and on budget.

As side note, this brings up another thought – depth vs. breadth, a debate that I often am engaged in.  Is a highly skilled brick mason qualified to do tile work?  As an educated consumer I would not hire a brick mason to lay my tile floor, although these are adjacent skills the discrete skills required to deliver effectively and efficiently most probably do not exist.

Would love your thoughts on this rant….

-RJB