THE FUTILITY OF STRUGGLE

I recently wrote a polemic on the subject of Struggle and its utter futility. The assertion is:

My experience of struggle (mine and others') is that it is a pointless dissipation of energy that leads to disease, a vainglorious ego-trip and a demeaning of the human spirit.

I argue that struggle is a negative emotion based on the fear of loss and is counter-productive and harmful.

If you have strong feelings either way on this subject, please let me know.

LOONY THEORIES

I've recently become aware of just how big and successful the whole Conspiracy Theory business is. David Icke must be up there in the rankings.

One of his theories is that the moon is a giant mind control machine - sounds pretty wacky, just like a lot of his other theories. But then that particular theory has been around a long time in a different guise - the astrologers have for aeons attributed a lunar mental influence to the moon... particularly on lunatics!

And there's a lot of anecdotal influence from scout leaders, nurses, police officers and teachers that behaviour changes during a full moon.

Any more evidence - and in particular plausible explanations as to how - gratefully accepted...

SUCCESS = EFFORT?

Some transferable dance wisdom from my esteemed teachers Alan and Norma Millar:

Years ago, at the height of their career, Alan was told by his new coach to stop competing on the dance floor and to just enjoy it instead. Strange advice from someone paid to help win them yet another national championship.

But Alan said that the effect was life-changing and extended their career by at least another 5 years. And they kept on winning.

I meet a lot of people in business that are competing all the time - they don't all really seem to enjoy it - some are successful, some are not. My hunch is that effort and success are not as inextricably intertwined as we might think...

...especially if success for you is more than just winning.

SORRY NICK, YOUR APOLOGY MISSED THE MARK

I try to avoid politics as a rule, but I can't resist commenting on Nick Clegg's recent video mea culpa.

Now I like NC, not necessarily his politics, but I like his earnest candour and his apparent willingness to say it as it is.

The problem with his apology is that it is immediately followed by an injunction:

When you've made a mistake you should apologise. But more importantly - most important of all - you've got to learn from your mistakes.

So he moves from an abject apology to a general directive that we must all adopt his code of ethics to make everything good. He uses the 2nd person - that's you and me.

I'm sorry, but it's not unequivocal, and it's not personal - it's arguably sanctimonious and insincere. And that's why the spoof is more interesting than the original.

MYERS BRIGGS WITH COLOURS

I've just signed up for Insights Discovery's accreditation programme which will allow me to run personality profiles on my hapless clients.

To be honest, I've steered clear of profiling for many years and this feels almost like I'm selling out. But I do recognise that for many people out there, this kind of process can represent their first foray into any kind of self-awareness - and that has to be a good thing.

I'm also a big fan of Carl Jung who did the groundwork behind this system and others such as Myers Briggs.

So, as long as I use this process strictly as the start of the conversation about behaviour, and not as an end in itself, I'll be happy that I'm not compromising any principles.

Oh, and by the way, I'm a Motivator...

GROWING PAINS

I recently spent a day with the management team of a small banking software house. Nice guys, young, driven and successful...

Just one little problem - the management culture that's got them to where they are today, will keep them there for ever and a day.

The charismatic founder and CEO is able enough to dive into and fix problems across the business very effectively.

And in doing so undermines and demeans the responsibility of his management team. Lo and behold, they do the same, thus unwittingly cascading the corrosive management style throughout the business.

The result: a disgruntled workforce unwilling to take ownership of issues - and a business that will attract people that need to be told what to do at every turn... and how to do it.

So, as Alice said, "If everybody minded their own business, the world would go around a great deal faster than it does."

THE GREAT LEADERSHIP SCAM

I don't know about you but I'm fed up to the back teeth hearing and reading about the need for leadership: charismatic, high-performing, target-busting, people-wowing leaders.

Attributing corporate success to an individual leader, and rewarding them commensurately with their inflated hero status is not only a demeaning insult to the rest of the organisation, it is also crassly ignorant of reality.

Leaders, at their best, can only release the potential held within the organisation. So a well-performing leader gets the best out of their people. Success means everyone is doing their job - status and remuneration needs to respect this to maintain it.

When I see a team or an organisation working well, I see collective leadership with everyone leading and supporting, utilising their strengths.............

Everyone is equal in an atmosphere of trust and respect.

I recently ran a workshop for a global luxury goods brand. All very bright, capable people, experienced and effective in their fields. In walked the CEO and the whole focus of energy shifted tangibly from the issues being discussed to the man himself. Every movement he made, every word he uttered redirected the whole team. I could feel every member of the team asking themselves "Will my opinion fit with his? Will it meet with his approval?"

Surely, in this century's new-found individualism, shouldn't we be referencing ourselves, rather than others?

So, with apologies to Ghandi: let us all be the leaders we want to see in the world. 

THE METAPHOR IN THE MACHINE

Hanna Thoren

I was reminded recently, dipping into some LinkedIn forums, how the machine metaphor is endemic in organisational thinking. I guess this is a legacy from the 20th century, during which machines dominated our development across the board.

But I've seen this metaphor in action and I've seen the damage it does....................

If you want your organisation to run like a well-oiled machine, then its elements should behave predictably - but its elements are people and people have a chaotic, emotional, unpredictable aspect to them, which is the antithesis of machine behaviour. So trying to build a deterministic organisation out of unpredictable pieces is not going to have a happy outcome.

And then there is the environment in which the machine operates, comprising social, political and economic elements, all of which are intrinsically chaotic.

So, just at a theoretical level, trying to create a machine-like organisation out of unpredictable bits in a unpredictable world really won't cut the mustard.

And, surprise, surprise - it doesn't work in practice either!

DROP DEAD SUCCESSFUL

Of the Top 5 Regrets of the Dying, number 2 (coming from every male patient) is...

"I WISH I HADN'T WORKED SO HARD"

Nuff said?

THE TOOL AND ITS APPLICATION

I've just responded to a criticism of QR codes. QR stands for Quick Response and refers to 2-dimensional bar codes. BA have an app that allows me to get through airport security and board BA flights with an iPhone, using a QR code.

The criticism centres on how they can be used to direct smart phones that are capable of reading them, to spam/malware sites with dark intentions.

It reminded me of how easy it is to rubbish the tool because of one of its applications.

QR codes are not very interesting to look at, so I've used a picture of another tool being applied in a contentious way.