At first I didn't understand it... but then I thought about it.

Recently I had a conversation with an engineer who owned a small business; our conversation was about having a road entrance widened to bring it up to code. Having an entrance up to code meant I could get a civic address, and then I could get building permits... I then could "build stuff" if I wanted to. All part of the process of creating something from nothing it seems, and a nice reminder you always have to start at the very beginning.

As we settled on final quotes and timeframes I happened to ask him how business was going; he went on to say it was going well, he continued to get more and more jobs, and he really didn't want to get big. As I listened to him my thought process went something like this... "Great, GREAT... WHAT?".

Wait a second, doesn't everyone want to start a business, grow it to be big and influential, make a bunch of money, and spend the rest of your life on easy street? It didn't seem to be the case for this particular business owner.

Days later I found myself reflecting on what he said and why he would say such a thing — Was it a result of not wanting the "headaches" that can come with a larger more complicated business? Maybe he was a great engineer but not really a good businessperson and didn't have the skills to run a bigger business? Maybe he wanted a good work-life balance and getting bigger would disrupt that balance? Maybe he loved what he was currently doing, and he knew a bigger company would take him away from what he loved to do?

Although I will probably never know the reason, I couldn't stop wondering about it; what's even more curious was it really wasn't any of my business. All that really mattered, and the only real concern for me, was that my new entrance would be "up to code". In the end there are reasons why he said what he said, and if it really mattered to my new entrance I would have asked what they were so I could better understand — Why he didn't want to get bigger really didn't matter to me and I didn't need to understand.

As I thought about this I was reminded that your objective determines your need to understand.

In this particular case, my objective was to secure someone who could widen my entrance up to code, and I needed to understand if he could do it... my objective was not to help him expand his business, so it really didn't matter if I understood why he said what he said. This became a nice reminder that objectives govern everything you do, and if you are doing something not in-line with your objective, you need to ask yourself why you are doing what you're doing — It definitely was worth spending the time thinking about it.

I am quite confident my new entrance will be up to code when he's finished. And that is all that matters.

iamgpe  

The struggles with having a PLAN B, but not so much with burning a few ships.

The following is the original and the rewrite can be found by clicking here.

There is nothing better than a short road trip with three old friends* to generate a wide range of conversations and topics; the spectrum ranging from the benign, through the downright crass, to the "somewhat brilliant". One of these conversations brought out an idea that included the PLAN A and PLAN B that would lead to its realization. 

To this I chimed in, "In my experience many times your PLAN B becomes your PLAN A as people end up defaulting to PLAN B when things get difficult". This "self indulgent profoundness" continued when someone pointed out that invading Vikings would burn their ships, and in doing so, leave only two available options... success or death. After that, the conversations continued to ebb and flow through the spectrum but it did leave me with two nagging questions -

1. Did the Vikings really burn their ships after they invaded?
2. Why would I suggest having a PLAN B negatively impacts the effectiveness of your PLAN A when I believe it's important to have a PLAN B?

I wasn't able to definitively confirm the Vikings burned their ships, but did find references to a legend that the Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés ordered the burning of the ships when he landed in the New World so his men would realize there was no chance of retreat; to be victorious, they would have to give it their all. There are also similar references throughout ancient times, so I think we can safely say at least one military leader in our storied past came up with this motivational idea. 

With the issue of the charred remains of Viking ships put to bed and the meaning tucked away, I needed to understand the issue of PLAN B becoming PLAN A by virtue of prudently having a backup plan; I was struggling with the contradiction it inherently caused because I truly believe having a PLAN B leads to a better chance of success. After a little thought and introspection, it became clear that I misspoke and was simply being loose with language that was confusing everything. Please let me explain and correct my error.

I probably should start with two simple definitions:

An objective: a thing aimed at or sought; a goal (or in the case that started these prose; an idea).

A plan: a detailed proposal for doing or achieving a goal.

Where I got myself into trouble was playing with loose language regarding the definitions of a GOAL and a PLAN and then struggled with the concept of not having a contingency plan(s) to drive success as a result. What I should have said was "In my experience many times your GOAL B becomes your GOAL A as people end up defaulting to it when things get difficult", which strangely enough brings us back to the Vikings.

The Vikings (or Hernán Cortés) had a single goal... their GOAL A if you will, that was to invade and conquer. They didn't have a GOAL B that was to invade, see how things went, and if it just wasn't working as they had hoped go somewhere else. This is what I was trying to say with my loose language but was ultimately said much better by burning a few ships - You should only have one GOAL; any more and you will surely default to the easiest and never achieve what you really want.

And with this whole issue of loose language all sorted out, having a PLAN B made more sense than ever. Achieving goals aren't always easy and the best laid plans may not always work out as expected. Having a contingency plan, a PLAN B per se, makes it easier to adapt to the situations that stand in the way of achieving your goals. 

There is also another advantage to having a PLAN B - With it's very existence it ensures you have your GOAL, have looked at the situation, and developed a PLAN A; inherently, it also indicates that potential challenges and the proverbial "wrench(s) in the machine" have been identified and that actions to address them are in place... all increasing the probability for success.

So celebrate your PLAN B! It is a nice indicator that you will succeed.

iamgpe

* Thanks to Huey, Dewey and The Duke for a great road trip, and our continued search for a great tasting bourbon. 

The problem statement... a solution to a runaway meeting.

A meeting can be defined as a gathering of two or more people that has been convened for the purpose of achieving a common goal such as sharing information, reaching agreement, etc.* - With that said, meetings are one of those business topics that are easy fodder for opinion, which more often than not, isn't flattering.

Dave Barry, the Pulitzer-Prize winning humorist said, "Meetings are an addictive, highly self-indulgent activity that corporations and other organizations habitually engage in only because they cannot actually masturbate". I myself can still remember a meeting where a team, after 45 minutes, had still not come up with a name for themselves, I truly don't know if they ever did, as I just left to go do something more productive... see how easy it is to take shots. It is not my intention to spend any time on the "six easy steps for a more effective meeting", as the Internet can serve you very well that way. I did however, want to spend a minute or two on how the "Problem Statement" can be used to effectively stop a runaway meeting. 

A while back, I found myself in a "we have to fix this meeting"... six or seven people around the table brainstorming and as you may appreciate, it was a free for all with conversation from every direction. About ten minutes into the meeting, a very wise financial leader asked a very simple question that brought the meeting to a very abrupt and silent halt.

"What is the problem statement we are trying to solve for?"

It was very apparent we really did not know what we were there to discuss, let alone solve for. After about five or so minutes of reflective comments and open thoughts, we rallied around a half-baked problem and finished the meeting. I actually don't know if we had another meeting on the subject, but then again, I may have blacked it out.

As a quick definition, a problem statement is a concise description of the issues that need to be addressed by a problem solving team and should be presented to them (or created by them) before they try to solve the problem*. Asking what the "problem statement is" comes in handy as a galvanizing question in meetings when the objective is to solve a problem - It is also useful to sort out meetings that don't seem to have an objective.

This brings me to another point... all meetings should have articulated objectives:

• A meeting to share information.
• A meeting to plan (includes meeting to take advantage of an opportunity).
• A meeting to solve a problem.
• A meeting to reach agreement and manage next steps.

In my opinion every meeting should begin with the meeting's objective and the problem statement that the meeting is trying to solve for. But again, everyone has opinions on meetings.

gpe

* definitions are from Wikipedia