Tolerance, tiredness and the end of a long year!

Last night, my wife and I were sitting at Melrose Arch, having a cup of coffee with our kids, when a really vicious fight broke out between 3 guys right before our eyes.

As a youngster, and being a DJ in many clubs, I saw a lot of fights. But this time it was different. I saw through the shocked eyes of my sons, and I saw it for the desire to do violence and harm that it really is.

And it ruined the evening. We all felt the horrible tension, the shock, of seeing something from a movie happen in a place of comfort and security - a place where we go to relax and unwind.

And I realised that at this time of year, everyone is a tinder keg.

Its been a very tough year - yet somehow, the shortest year ever! Its already December tomorrow - this year has really FLOWN past with very little regard for our desire to savour it. And I think that perhaps this is a blessing.

Time is relative, and hard years can often seem endless - yet this one has not. I must say that I find the odd combination of unpleasantness and speed to be relatively useful.

The worlds had a hard year. From recessions, to floods, fires and storms, e-tolls, crooked politicians and even hailstones the size of tennis balls in our own freak weather this week, theres been a lot of pressure on everyone in most walks of life.

Its really not surprising then that everyone is on a short leash, having no tolerance and losing their cool for anything. People are rude in the traffic, angry over little things, and generally ready to break out into a fight over pretty much anything.

I think its time to take a collective breath - for the world to slow down a bit, and to allow the peace and togetherness of this time of year to bring them together again. I could do with a bit of brotherly love and Christmas spirit right now. I'm ready to embrace it whenever you are!

Do entrepeneurs focus on the money or the journey?

Today is a public holiday in South Africa. Yet another one of those days that staff love and employers hate. Being a business owner, I used the day to catch up on work, and to have a meeting with fellow creative people that can never seem to get together during the work week.

Today reminded me yet again that owning your own business, and working towards that goal of having the big deal come in, is actually not the true reason we do it.

We do it because the love of the journey is what really drives us. Its why entrepreneurs are called serial - even though they've sold their business they start again. They start again because it just seems to be the right thing to do. If you really love innovating, then you cant help doing it. You just have to get back out there and do it again and again.

Today was a powerful reminder of that for me. Meeting with a group of highly intelligent, motivated, driven individuals, each of whom has built, started or run more businesses than most people do in their entire lives - that is what its all about.

The chance to see an idea, a small simple concept, morph from its rough and unformed state, into a fully fledged, multifaceted business plan with all the bells and whistles as a number of great minds get a chance to understand it, grasp it and fundamentally change it - thats why we do what we do!

What an awesome day. And what a privilege to be surrounded by people with so much drive, enthusiasm and energy. There is hope for the economy despite the downturn and the negativity, because there really are people who can make a difference.

Can you innovate from the top?

I read a really interesting article today, by someone who is quite obviously a leader in the field of innovation. He posed some interesting questions around a topic that I have been thinking about for some time, and it has prompted me to put down my thoughts on this topic.

The article was entitled On the Hypocrisy of Innovators, written by Jeff DeGraff, a Professor at the University of Michigan, and you can read it by following the link. 

In brief, the concept is - can you innovate when you are already a market leader, without challenging your own norms? By definition, the concept of innovation, as defined by the Oxford English dictionary is as follows:

verb: make changes in something established, especially by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.

The key here is the first part of the definition of innovation: to make changes to something established. This is the part I am really questioning - as a market leader, you are established, you are the de facto standard for that particular product or offering. Whilst you may come up with new ideas, methods or products, you certainly cannot make broad sweeping changes to something you yourself have established without damaging your own investment.

If the general principle of business is to be followed, the bigger you get the more you have invested in protecting that base, not upsetting it. And innovation is precisely that - upsetting the generally accepted norms. 

Take the music industry for example. It has everything invested in protecting its current model of revenue generation, which is the sale of music through an authorized channel. Innovation in this respect does not come from those with the most to lose, the market leaders. Those companies have grown too reliant on their current business models to innovate too strongly around anything that may cause those streams of revenue to be damaged.

On the other hand, an amazing woman by the name of Amanda Palmer (you can see her awesome presentation at the TED Talks here) can turn the current music revenue stream on its head. She can innovate - because she has nothing to lose. She is taking on the established methodology, and making changes to it - changing it in a fundamental way that will mean that no matter what happens in the future, the way people view purchasing music will forever be changed. Now THAT is innovation!

Why do giants emerge, then fail over time? Has this not been a pattern we have seen over and over again in our industry? Hewlett Packard, Novell, Lotus, Nokia, Blackberry - so many massive companies have waxed and waned.

They've lost to the innovators - the newcomers to the market who have taken them on - changing core features that the incumbent players have not dared to change without the fear of losing their core business.

Look at RIM, and their Blackberry. The ubiquitous device was the undisputed market leader - now they're running a very sad third to Apple and Android. And why? Because they were too scared to innovate away from their trademark keyboard, even when the market moved that way. 

When they finally woke up, and launched their half touch screen, half keyboard model the 9900 - it was too little too late - innovation in the form of the iPhone and the Samsung Galaxy had come and they had missed the boat. Their market share fell faster than anyone could have believed, and what remains is largely history playing out, as they through caution to the wind and try to make their final comeback strategy with their new Blackberry 10. 

Oddly enough, they now have the ability to innovate. Unlike Apple and Android who have a lot to lose, and so cant make too many changes, Blackberry's failure to date has made them the new underdog. They are left with a few loyal customers wanting them to succeed, and little to no general market expectation. They will discover, as so many have before them, that innovation is a lot easier when your back is against the wall, and you have nothing left to lose.

Which brings me to my final point (for now) on this topic. 

Its much easier to innovate when you're starving than when you're not. There is no substitute for having nothing to lose when it comes to really upsetting an industry or a concept with something completely new. 

And that's real innovation!

Courage is the key to success

I've been reading a lot of management articles, and even more on the topic of innovation - two key concepts dear to my heart and core to my world.

The most clarity you can get often comes from the simplest concepts. In one of the comments on one of my many re-postings and blogs on the topic, my dear cousin Ivan Sheiham, PhD, came up with a lovely summary. He said that whilst many concepts rang true, the key to success was really courage.

Courage is, without a shadow of doubt, one of the key differentiators between those who succeed in business, and those who don't. Courage comes in many forms in business, and I can see the application in so many places.

It takes courage to present your ideas of change - to go against the crowd and see the world differently, and not be ashamed to share that vision with others.

It takes courage to take the criticism or lack of faith of others, especially negaholics who resist change and draw others into their dismissal of new things, and yet not lose your focus or belief.

It takes courage to go to financiers, funds and banks, stand in front of people, and give them your heartfelt assurance that you will succeed, and to accept rejection without allowing it to stop you from trying again elsewhere.

It takes courage to be the one to make the decisions, to be the ultimate point of no return, where the success or failure of the project depends on making hard decisions, and sometimes, being able to admit you were wrong, and realigning the project before it goes too far off course.

It takes courage to take on the responsibility of other peoples livelihoods, and to carry the pressure of being able to pay their salaries no matter what might happen, never letting them feel threatened or scared even when you are terrified yourself of where the next payroll might come from.

There is no doubt that courage is a key ingredient to succeeding in life and in business.

Those who falter or allow others to dissuade them from their course through fear - be it fear of embarrassment, of failure, or of ridicule - those people will certainly not change the world!

The law of unintended consequences

I was reading an interesting article today, one that made me think a lot about the title of this blog. In the article, which you can read here, the story of how Google may just have created its own nemesis in Samsung is told.

Apparently, with Samsung now owning almost 40% of the worlds smartphone market share, as opposed to Apples 25% (I'm rounding off of course, but its close enough), Samsung is now so powerful it has the ability to wag the dog - thus possibly forcing Google to give up some of their revenue share on searches to keep the relationship happy.

It makes me wonder how many times companies and individuals have carefully built and nurtured partnerships and relationships, only to discover some time down the line that the person or company they invested in have become their biggest rivals.

Whether its friends who end up dating a prospective boyfriend or girlfriend, or companies who ultimately end up funding their own successors, there must be countless tales to tell of a similar nature.

I recall hiring a young, aggressive guy in Cape Town many years ago in my previous business, Torque-IT. Seeing his energy, I decided to give him a chance over others who seemed more suited to the job. For many months, he applied himself diligently to learning as much as could about our business, taking any opportunity to learn from me directly about how I had grown my business, and what my goals were for the local market.

After about a year in my employ, he resigned one day with no advance notice, and I discovered some weeks later that he had started his own training company only blocks away from my own branch. Being local, and having the advantage of knowing every customer, method and marketing tool we possessed, he soon became a major competitor in the market place.

I wonder if there is any way to avoid such stories? If you never trust anyone, you can't grow and build the people you need to take your company to the next level. On the other hand, if you do trust too much, you often end up giving away too much.

The same can be said for business partners. In order to grow your own business, you often need to help a prospective partner build and develop their skills, so that they can successfully sell your products. The more they sell, the more you grow. But often, these partners use that growth to demand more margin for themselves, or more exclusivity, and when this is no longer plausible, often turn to your competitor to get better pricing.

Of course, competitors who didn't invest the time, money and know-how to grow those relationships are only too happy to jump in and "steal" the business with higher discounts just when the partnership has started to yield dividends for your company.

I'm not sure that there is any way to avoid this law of unintended consequences, which by its very name and nature is just that - unintended. Since you didn't anticipate the outcome, there is no way to plan against it.

I'm putting this rule down to one of the laws of nature that evolve logically to keep the natural equilibrium, and to ensure that balance is preserved in all things.

My condolences to Google, and my wishes for the best of luck in their attempt to take back control of the tail they have accidentally allowed to wag their very large dog!

Oscar, and other all-consuming thoughts

So I've had the privilege of meeting Oscar. He's a great guy. Someone the country can be proud of. And now he's consuming the voracious news networks like OJ Simpson did in 1994. It's overwhelming, its completely mesmerizing and its somehow a little bit sick.

Half the population want to believe he's guilty, the other half want him to be innocent. There's something so polarizing about it - it makes the Jake vs Edward camp of Twilight seem like a beginners story.

Right now, the case is a media circus, with facts, half facts and blatant untruths being blended together into a potent cocktail that seems to have everyone arguing for or against with a passion I quite frankly find almost mind boggling in its intensity.

I've heard everything ranging from the obvious (he killed her, he didn't kill her) to the bizarre (it was Lance Armstrong who did it to distract from his doping, its the Mexicans trying to discredit Nike).

Where does all this stuff come from? Why is there so much emotion attached to this incident.

Yesterday, in Orange County, some crazy bastard with a gun shot and killed 3 people, then himself, in yet another gun incident. He tried to kill 5 others before he joined the joyous throngs of the Darwin Award winners. I am sure that each of those people is being mourned by many other people. And yet it barely even made the news.

So why is the Oscar story generating so much passion, and so much of the limelight?

Before I share my own thoughts on why this could be, I mentioned that I met Oscar a few years back. He was in love with one of my staff members at the time that I met him, and he used to visit our offices every now and again to come and see her.

He was just like any other guy who we met, but a bit more famous. He was happy some days, upset others and even pissed off once - he got into an argument with the car guard who almost closed the boom on his car.

Its easy to look back and remember only that incident and say, wow, he had a temper. But that was one out of many, and if truth be told, I lost my temper many more times with that same car guard over the same thing. And I can assure you, I never shot anyone.

So why is this story so captivating?

I think it all boils down to something very simple. I'll call it "Pedestalling". Yes, like putting someone on a pedestal.

Whenever people do this, to anyone, they lose sight of the person, and start seeing the symbol. And the polarizing issues start there - long before those people do anything at all really.

For some, there is a genuine desire to see these people succeed. They WANT them to do better, to succeed more, to live life to the fullest, because they identify with these people, and live vicariously through them and their success.

For others, there is a secret desire to see these people fail. To be dumped by loved ones, lose their fortunes, fall during a race, be secretly doping - anything at all that will bring them down. These people are jealous of the success and adulation that the famous folks enjoy, and want nothing more than to justify their own miserable existence by seeing these idols prove to have clay feet.

When something like this incident happens, I think people immediately fall onto one side of the fence. Those who admire the folks, and celebrate their successes, start finding reasons why this cannot be.

And of course, those who revile them use this as an immediate opportunity to voice their secret prejudice, and to instantly pronounce them guilty - their desire to have this be so overriding any possible truth without even a pause.

So what do I think?

I think that Oscar is a great guy. A worthy hero. A representative of our country, and what we can achieve when we set our minds to it. He's a symbol of success against adversity. Of making more of the hand he was dealt than most could have, or would have.

And I also think that the very fact that he is rumored to have a temper rules out any possibility that he could possibly be guilty of pre-meditated murder. Whoever heard of a hot-blooded person with a wild temper sitting quietly waiting for someone to go to the bathroom and then shooting them through a door.

As for the rest - did he really shoot her in a fit of passion, or by mistake?

We need to wait and see what the evidence brings out, and keep our belief in the man who was on Time's Top 100 most influential people in 2012.

I say support him, and believe in him, and let the little selfish person inside of you walk away from branding him a criminal before we even know the facts, just to justify your own shortcomings in life.

Underneath the media circus, there is Oscar the man, not Oscar idol. He may have done wrong, or he may have made a mistake - but either way, he did it as a man, not an idol, and whatever it was, it was no more, or less, human than any of us.

It never hurts to believe, even if you're wrong. Billions of people do it every day. Its called FAITH. Lets keep the faith in Oscar, and in his innocence, until its proven beyond a doubt that this is not the case. And even then, should that happen, lets pray for his redemption, not his punishment. In this life, and the next.

Innovation is NOT the key to success

I recently read an article that really resonated with me. The article, entitled Three Obstacles to Innovation Diffusion, really puts into simple terms the concept that the time invested in taking an innovative idea from concept to fruition is really what differentiates the true entrepreneur from the wannabe.

How many times have you heard someone speak about a new product or concept and say that they had thought of it before? If I had a pound for every time I heard someone say that, as my grandfather always said, I'd be rolling in pounds.

The more I think about it, the more I think that almost anyone can innovate or come up with a good idea. The true test for success though is whether that person or company is prepared to invest the time to take that concept from an idea to a reality.

Looking at the diagram below, taken from the article mentioned above by +Tim Kastelle, you can see that he beautifully illustrates in one simple picture what the difference is between success and failure for most innovators.

Using this simple diagram, he explains that often ideas take longer than expected to spread. It takes time for people to hear about them, and then more time for the concepts to resonate with people. Until this happens, there is no way that they will be adopted or used - you have to break through the bottom or flat line of the S-curve before you can succeed.

Using this hypothesis, I would say that I have the basis for a new book - Innovation is NOT the Key to Success. As this blog is most likely to be the opening chapter of the book if I can find the courage to take the time to write it, it would be great if you could comment so I can use those comments in my new book!

So here is my main thought! 

"For entrepreneurs, the true difference between success and failure is the commitment and time dedicated to a concept to take it from an idea to reality."

Looking back over my career, I can definitely say that from a personal perspective, the difference between me and my competitors during my periods of success has been my willingness to sacrifice my personal and valuable time, time I could spend doing other things, to driving, visualizing, evangelizing and selling my ideas to others. 

In other words, whenever I have succeeded, my successes have had less to do with my ability to innovate (which of course is still required) and more to do with this commitment in time.

More to follow soon. Let me have your thoughts if you get a chance - I would love to have some feedback on these thoughts before I go further with my thoughts.

The Belated Birthday Blog

So my birthday happened last week, and I was going to write a blog on my birthday. And life got in the way, as it does, and I had a wonderful birthday, but never got around to writing the blog. I was going to call it the Birthday Blog, and now, since I still wanted to write about the same topic - well, you get the message.

Anyway, the thing that got me on my birthday, which fell on a work day this year, is the principle of people being nicer to you (in general of course) on your birthday.

This year, I tried a little experiment. I let it slip that it was my birthday the day before with one customer and one supplier that I am having a pretty tough time with. Then, on my birthday, I pushed for resolution on a major outstanding issue with each one.

Funny thing was, that in both cases, the parties gave in, and commented on the fact that it was my birthday, and so they would give a little.

This has really opened up some major concepts for me.

Why should these otherwise difficult, truculent and unwaveringly hard-arsed individuals suddenly back down because its my birthday? What possible difference could it make, in a purely business context?

It struck me that most people do have a softer side, and that events like birthdays, tragedies and illness tend to bring it to the fore.

Which leads me to wonder - why cant we all be like that all the time? Is this a part of human nature that drives people to be nice - a pre-programmed response to key events - or is it a desire for a chance to show the nicer side of our nature?

It seems to me that many people are looking for a reason to be nice - an excuse to not have to be so hard or so tough or so rude. Maybe there is some creative way to find and elicit that response to your sales pitch. Is that why pretty girls have it easier when selling? Or people with disabilities?

I am going to carefully build a marketing campaign that targets these types of receptors, and see what happens. I will report back on my blog.

Till then, ciao for now...

Of Blogs, Posts and Maslow's Hierachy

So - day 1 as an official blogger is now over, and I've decided that +1 may actually be something I like. In fact, I got a few +1's today, and they made me feel good. Sadly, I never got any posts, even though I promised at least 2 staff an increase if they posted something to stroke my ego. Ah well, seems John Doerr was right after all!

On the other hand, 26 people viewed my blog between the time I wrote it, and round about now. Now, whilst these are certainly not what you would call an overwhelming response anywhere but at a friendly taxi driver conference, it was definitely a start.

I've realised that I'm actually writing these blogs for me. That's kind of a Self-actualisation if you think about it - the very top of Maslow's hierarchy of need. Yet posts and +1's - these fall squarely into Esteem, and maybe even Belonging.

This whole thing fascinates me, enough to write my second blog about it. If I'm writing the blog for me, then why should I care about the lower levels. In theory, each level is required for a person to rise to the next - in other words, you can't worry about anything else if you're starving, but once you've eaten, you want a safe place to sleep. When those needs are regularly fulfilled, you can start to think about Belonging to a group, and ultimately, what those people think of you.

Only when you've risen ABOVE all that, can you reach for self-actualisation. At least, thats the theory. And yet here I am - doing something for me, then worrying about whether other people liked me. or +1'ed me. Seems very confusing, and I realise that I am very glad I never studied psychology, and instead went into the simple world of managing people every day. Oh wait, uhm, great! I do the same thing, but don't have a diploma!

Well, you can't win them all, and this blog is surely going to go down as one of my most boring in what will hopefully be a long career of self fulfilling writing, buffed up nicely by lots of interesting posts, likes and +1's from a growing reader base who suffer through these diatribes in the hope that they'll eventually get better when I finally have something to write about!

Whew. Should I even post this? Is there any doubt? 

Diving Headfirst seems Pretty Scary!

Its late at night, everyones asleep, I didn't have a cup of coffee before bed but I'm wide awake! So after reading 2 chapters of the Tao of Twitter, I decided to deep dive right in and reactivate my Twitter profile.

Which logically left one open space - your blog address. Some pretty awesome Google search engine features later, my dues paid with a 100% profile update on a Google+ account (who the hell uses that anyway?) and suddenly I'm posting my first blog.

Doesn't actually seem that bad really. Sort of quiet and calming, except that the empty page - the old "tabula rasa" - is pretty scary when you first start typing.

Of course, now that I'm into it and the page has some nice Arial font scribbled on it, the fear is subsiding, and I guess the shock of the cold water is wearing off. Hey - this is quite nice. Expressive, fun, and non-commital.

And then some more surfing later, I find this quote....

"Well, there are more writers of blogs right now than there are readers, so that's clearly a vanity phenomenon." John Doerr

Well, thats a bit of a passion killer. But at least I'll read it myself again tomorrow morning, and maybe, I can abuse my CEO privileges and ask the less scary staff at iPulse to read it over and buff my ego with compliments afterwards!

Yes, with the right people following me, and Google+'ing me (whatever the hell that is) and retweeting me and stroking my ego, I could just see myself spending hours writing this stuff so that in 100 years my great, great grandkids can at least explain to their friends that they have a history of insanity in the family that dates back a century, and there will be a digital log to prove it.

Unless the interwebs melt down before then and we have to start again - that will be pretty boring on Google search, since by then it will be super fast but have nothing to search until all the nonsense builds up again. OK. I'm sounding like +Francois van Loggerenberg after a few too many beers and an evening spent circular referencing Wikipedia!

Nothing says go to bed more than blathering, so I guess thats it for my first (and possibly my last) post! But at least I can finish my twitter profile off now, and get that 100% score thats so elusive without a blog address! Woooohooooo!