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 "rookie attitude" for making amazing things happen, and continuing the trend.

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

A number of years back I was in a meeting where a leader professed his enjoyment of working with new "rookie" employees and the excitement that came with it. I was not surprised when some in the crowd offered a contrary perspective regarding inexperience, the training burden and the "baby sitting" that needs to be done - I may be paraphrasing slightly when I use the term "baby sitting" but that's more or less what some were saying.  

The leader, after offering some thoughts on the definition of "leadership" and the apparent lack there of, pointed out that he really liked the energy someone new brings to the job and the opportunity to be involved with "all that potential". He went on to say, "Sure they make 'rookie mistakes'. But sometimes, because they don't know any better, can make amazing things happen". This has resonated with me for years.

In this context, I should point out a "rookie" refers to anyone new to an endeavour and not just the 21 year old standing on the pitching mound with the 100 mph fastball - This is probably a good point for a reminder that being a rookie is something all of us, in one role or another has been (and probably more than once)... not to mention that all of us have made that so called "rookie mistake" (and probably more than once). In my experience, this is something that tends to get forgotten along the way.... definitely the leader I spoke of earlier thought so.

Aside from cutting "rookies" some slack because we have all been there, it needs to be recognized there is a fundamental perspective that rookies have which we need to continue tapping into; something that many of us loose as our experience and achievements snowball and something we need to continue our momentum. As they say, "rookies don't know any better", but as you gain some experience and achievement under your belt it is expected that "you do know better" - Here in lies a problem and an opportunity. 

When you "don't know any better" you are forever looking to achieve and grow, whereas when you "know better" you are looking to protect what you have - In effect curtailing the drive that comes with "not knowing any better" so you can maintain what you have, forever worring about losing what you have gained:

• "I've done that before and that was a waste of time"
• "I know all about that, it is too risky"
• "I won't do that. I've worked too hard to get this far"
• "Sounds like a great opportunity but that's not where my expertise is"
• "etc"

I am not questioning the value of the experience that comes from the trials and tribulations of work and life (in fact it's crucial) , but rather suggesting rookies put it all out there and are not impacted with the considerations and doubts as a result of experience and lessons learned. It is about maintaining the balance of experience and achievements with the "rookie attitude" that allows you to continue making amazing things happen, and resist that urge to stop, maintain and protect.

Of course this is easier said than done, but here are some ideas that come to mind: 

• Remove the term "retirement" from your lexicon.
• Cultivate the "rookie attitude" by adopting new technology.
• If you are in a position to hire a "rookie" - Do it.
• Search out rookie friends and colleagues. Talk to them and listen to them - Their attitude is infectious.
• Make a point to trying something new that makes you uncomfortable.
• Ask yourself what is the worst that can happen if you do something with all the gusto of a rookie. And then weigh that against the benefits.
• Remember life is short and as the saying goes, "If not now, when?"

And lastly, the time of being a rookie is just so much fun*. That alone should be a good enough reason to strive for that "rookie attitude" and go after whatever is in front of you with gusto, no matter how much experience you have.

iamgpe

* Spend some time thinking about your "rookie" days and I will guarantee a smile comes to your face and you say to yourself, "Yes ... it was so much fun"

The "White space"* that so infrequently gets used...

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

Whitespace seems to be one of those terms that is blessed with a wide array of definitions - Who knew?

• White space is the empty space in a design. White space is used to separate disparate design elements and group similar ones. White space is the lack of graphics or text in the layout.
• White space, in a communications context, refers to under utilized portions of the radio frequency (RF) spectrum.
• White space, in computer science, is any character or series of characters that represent horizontal or vertical space in typography.
• White space is a process management concept described by Geary A. Rummler and Alan P. Brache in 1991 as the area between the boxes in an organizational chart—where, very often, no one is in charge.
• White space is an esoteric programming language developed by Edwin Brady and Chris Morris at the University of Durham (also developers of the Kaya and Idris programming languages).
• The White Space (Italian: Lo spazio bianco) is a 2009 Italian drama film directed by Francesca Comencini.

And finally the definition that came to mind first (although it seems to be used so infrequency, let alone recognized as an important practice):

• White space is time to provide the opportunity to think.

Or... ponder, reflect, deliberate, consider, meditate, contemplate, muse, ruminate, be lost in thought, be in a brown study, rack one's brains or put on one's thinking cap. 

Something, that in a culture where it can be said "busy is glorified" we just don't seem to do enough of. Mostly I wonder if it is because "thinking" just doesn't seem "busy enough"... it is rare thing indeed to hear someone say they spent their Friday night "thinking".

My humble aim here is to offer a thought or two regarding why it's worth considering "White space for thinking time" as an important practice, and not necessarily how to free up your time to find it - My experience is if you think something is important enough, you will find the time. I should also point out that at no level do I want to go down the bunny hole of "thinking as a philosophy", "frameworks of thinking" or anything of that ilk, but rather the recognition of how important it is to set aside time for thinking.

Thinking: the process of using one's mind to consider or reason about something.

As an important consideration, it should be pointed out that thinking, real thinking, is a solitary activity. So in the context of "White space", it specifically refers to time alone to think... you, by yourself, left to ponder whatever needs pondering. Thinking feeds everything you will be involved with - 

• Planning
• Brainstorming
• Conversation
• Presentation
• Action
• Interpretation
• Implementation

It goes without saying (and I am certain there is data to back this up), the more you have thought about something, the higher the quality or probability for success in whatever you are involved with.

It is probably also worth pointing out that planning sessions, braining storming sessions and meetings are not for thinking, but rather to bring thoughts together to drive tangible action forward; the more cynical may suggest that's more of a "stretch goal" at the best of times. These meetings do not become a default for real thinking - White space for thinking time is needed drive better planning and execution and needs to find its way onto your calendar for "you, yourself and I".

Whether you agree with me or not, it is worth thinking about it. Have you freed up some White space?

iamgpe

* As always thank you Google and Wikipedia.